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 1-16 are pending in this application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in South Korea on 12/05/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Korean application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/11/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered by the examiner.
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 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kita et al. U.S. Patent Application 2021/0234239 (hereinafter “Kita”).
Regarding claim 1, Kita teaches a film cable (i.e. protective element-mounted flexible flat cable 6)(figs.1 and 4A) comprising: a conductor wire (i.e. conductive wires 28)(fig.4A); and an overcurrent blocking unit (i.e. current limiting elements 38)(fig.4A) on the conductor wire (implicit)(refer to fig.4A) and configured to block an overcurrent flowing through the conductor wire (refer to [0038]) by reducing an allowable current of the conductor wire (refer to [0038]).
Regarding claim 16, Kita teaches a battery module (i.e. battery module 1)(fig.1) comprising: a housing (inherent); a plurality of battery cells in the housing (i.e. cells 8)(Fig.1); and the film cable (i.e. protective element-mounted flexible flat cable 6)(fig.1) as claimed in claim 1 in the housing (refer to the rejection of claim 1 above) and seated on the plurality of battery cells (refer to [0022]).
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) 2-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weber Swiss Patent Document CH 279454 A (hereinafter “Weber”).
Regarding claim 2, Kita teaches the film cable as claimed in claim 1; however, Kita does not teach wherein the overcurrent blocking unit comprises an overcurrent blocking hole passing through the conductor wire. However, Weber teaches wherein the overcurrent blocking unit comprises an overcurrent blocking hole (i.e. holes b-e)(figs.1-4) passing through the conductor wire (i.e. fusible conductors a)(figs.1-4). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film cable of Kita to include the overcurrent blocking unit of Weber to provide the advantage of simplifying manufacture of the film cable.
Regarding claim 3, Kita and Weber teach the film cable as claimed in claim 2, wherein a plurality of overcurrent blocking holes are spaced apart from each other in an extension direction of the conductor wire (refer to Weber figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, Kita and Weber teach the film cable as claimed in claim 3, wherein a total area of the plurality of overcurrent blocking holes is optimized (refer to Weber translation page 2 last paragraph “The length of the metal-free section relative to the length of the end parts, as well as the cross-sectional changes, can be optimized”); however they do not teach wherein the total area of the plurality of overcurrent blocking hole is in a range of 36% to 42% of a total area of the conductor wire. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the total area of the plurality of overcurrent blocking hole is in a range of 36% to 42% of a total area of the conductor wire, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film cable of Kita and Weber to include wherein the total area of the plurality of overcurrent blocking hole is in a range of 36% to 42% of a total area of the conductor wire to provide the advantage of tuning the overcurrent blocking to the necessary limits for operation and protection of the circuitry.
Regarding claim 5, Kita and Weber teach the film cable as claimed in claim 3, further comprising an insulating member (i.e. Kita insulating sheet 30)(fig.4A) configured to surround the conductor wire (refer to Kita [0033] and [0034]).
Regarding claim 6, Kita and Weber teach the film cable as claimed in claim 3, wherein the overcurrent blocking hole comprises: a hollow portion formed of a hollow (implicit)(refer to Weber holes b-e)(figs.1-4); and an edge portion provided along a circumferential portion of the hollow portion (implicit)(refer to Weber outer circumference/perimeter of holes b-e)(figs.1-4).
Regarding claim 7, Kita and Weber teach the film cable as claimed in claim 6; however, they do not teach wherein a radius of the hollow portion is in a range of 0.07 mm to 0.09 mm. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein a radius of the hollow portion is in a range of 0.07 mm to 0.09 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film cable of Kita and Weber to include wherein a radius of the hollow portion is in a range of 0.07 mm to 0.09 mm to provide the advantage of optimizing the dimensions for the circuit and thereby tuning the overcurrent blocking to the necessary limits for operation and protection of the circuitry.
Regarding claim 8, Kita and Weber teach the film cable as claimed in claim 6; however, they do not teach wherein a distance between a center point of the hollow portion and a center point of the adjacent hollow portion is in a range of 0.1 to 0.3 mm. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein a distance between a center point of the hollow portion and a center point of the adjacent hollow portion is in a range of 0.1 to 0.3 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film cable of Kita and Weber to include wherein a distance between a center point of the hollow portion and a center point of the adjacent hollow portion is in a range of 0.1 to 0.3 mm to provide the advantage of optimizing the dimensions for the circuit and thereby tuning the overcurrent blocking to the necessary limits for operation and protection of the circuitry.
Regarding claim 9, Kita and Weber teach the film cable as claimed in claim 6, wherein the edge portion comprises: a pair of first edge portions (refer to Weber long ends of rectangular holes d and oval holes e)(figs. 3 and 4)spaced apart from each other in a first direction (implicit); and a pair of second edge portions (refer to Weber short ends of rectangular holes d and oval holes 2)(figs. 3 and 4) spaced apart from each other in a second direction intersecting the first direction (implicit) and connected to the pair of first edge portions (implicit).
Regarding claim 10, Kita and Weber teach the film cable as claimed in claim 9, wherein a length of the first edge portion is greater than a length of the second edge portion (implicit)(refer to Weber the long ends vs the short ends of the rectangular holes d and oval holes e)(figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 11, Kita and Weber teach the film cable as claimed in claim 10, wherein the edge portion further comprises connecting portions connecting the pair of first edge portions to the pair of second edge portions and formed to be rounded (refer to Weber oval holes e)(fig.4).
Regarding claim 12, Kita and Weber teach the film cable as claimed in claim 11; however, they do not teach wherein a distance between the second edge portion and the adjacent second edge portion is in a range of 0.04 mm to 0.06 mm. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wherein a distance between the second edge portion and the adjacent second edge portion is in a range of 0.04 mm to 0.06 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film cable of Kita and Weber to include wherein a distance between the second edge portion and the adjacent second edge portion is in a range of 0.04 mm to 0.06 mm to provide the advantage of optimizing the dimensions for the circuit and thereby tuning the overcurrent blocking to the necessary limits for operation and protection of the circuitry.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita and Weber as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Schlaak et al. U.S. Patent Application 2017/0263407 (hereinafter “Schlaak”).
Regarding claim 13, Kita and Weber teach the film cable as claimed in claim 3; however, they do not teach the film cable further comprising a potting resin filled in the overcurrent blocking hole. However, Schlaak teaches the film cable further comprising a potting resin (refer to [0006]) filled in the overcurrent blocking hole (refer to [0006]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film cable of Kita and Weber to include the potting material of Schlaak to provide the advantage of preventing/quenching arcing.
Regarding claim 14, Kita, Weber and Schlaak teach the film cable as claimed in claim 13; however, they do not teach wherein a ratio of a volume of the overcurrent blocking hole to a volume of the potting resin filled in the overcurrent blocking hole has a range of 1:3 to 1:5. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein a ratio of a volume of the overcurrent blocking hole to a volume of the potting resin filled in the overcurrent blocking hole has a range of 1:3 to 1:5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film cable of Kita, Weber, and Schlaak to provide the advantage of ensuring there are no air pockets for arcing, thereby reducing/eliminating arcing.
Regarding claim 15, Kita, Weber, and Schlaak teach the film cable as claimed in claim 14, wherein the potting resin comprises: a first potting resin filled in the overcurrent blocking hole (refer to Schlaak [0006]); and a second potting resin covering the overcurrent blocking hole and the conductor wire without filling in the overcurrent blocking hole anymore based on the ratio of the volume of the overcurrent blocking hole to the volume of the first potting resin filling in the overcurrent blocking hole exceeding 1:1 (refer to Schlaak [0006] and the rejection of claim 14 above)(there are no limitations that the second potting resin must be different than the first potting resin. Therefore, the first potting resin is the silicone of Schlaak which fills the hole and the second potting resin is the resin which fills outside of the hole).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J COMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-6133. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Thienvu V. Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
/KEVIN J COMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838