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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Regarding Claim-8, the limitation “a transfer layer is provided on an end face of a soldering pad close to the fuse” is not shown in the drawings. Therefore, the – “a transfer layer is provided on an end face of a soldering pad close to the fuse”- must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Regarding Claim-2, the limitation “an avoidance groove corresponding to a welding window is provided in the mica sheet”- is not shown in the drawings. Therefore, the – “an avoidance groove corresponding to a welding window is provided in the mica sheet”- must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over- MIHARA et al., (US 20220190451) in view of LAN et al. (US 20260094946).
Regarding Claim-1, MIHARA et al.- discloses a busbar (Fig. -2, Item#3) for integrating battery cells and a voltage sense harness (“VSH”) component electrically connected to the busbar, the busbar including a plurality of connection bars (Fig. -2, Item#12b, & 14b) connected to positive or negative electrodes of the battery cells and an insulating layer covering both sides of the plurality of connection bars (Fig. -8, Item#36A, 36B, covers both the connection line and the connection bar) in one piece, the VSH component including a first circuit board with a plurality of connection lines and an insulating film covering both sides of the plurality of connection lines (Fig. -8, Item# 36A, 36B), one end of a connection bar located away from a battery cell being connected to a corresponding connection line through a fuse (Fig. -4, Item#11), the fuse being provided on the outside of the corresponding insulating film and insulating layer (Fig. -4, Item#15), also refer to annotated figures 2 and 4 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
618
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
695
553
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
544
1235
media_image3.png
Greyscale
MIHARA et al. - does not disclose the welding of fuses, in fact MIHARA et al. did not disclose how the fuses are mechanically connected to the connection bar or the PCB. However, LAN et. al. - discloses the welding of fuses, each of the insulating film and insulating layer having welding windows, wherein the plurality of connection lines and the plurality of connection bars are respectively provided with welding pads at corresponding welding windows, and two ends of the fuse are respectively electrically connected to corresponding welding pads (Fig.-4, Item#260, & Paragraph [0044]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the welding of fuses as disclosed by LAN et. al. for better attachment of the fuse, and better conductive performance of this battery bus bar connection system, and since MIHARA et al. – did not disclose how the fuses were mechanically attached to the connection bar.
PNG
media_image4.png
617
562
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim-3, MIHARA et al.- discloses that the welding terminals (Fig. 4, Item-12B) protrude at both ends of the Fuse Fig. -8, Item#36A, 36B, covers both the connection line and the connection bar as one piece)
Regarding Claim-4, modified MIHARA et al.- discloses that that the insulating layer and insulating film bars are on the same side are an integrated structure (Fig. -8, Item#36A, 36B, covers both the connection line and the connection bar).
Claim-5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified - MIHARA et al. (US 20220190451) - further in view of Jeon et at. (US 20220336908) and Otsubo et al . (US 11152327).
Regarding Claim-5, modified MIHARA et al. does not disclose that the plurality of connecting lines, the plurality of connecting bars, and fuse is made of the same conductive materials. However, Jeon et at. (US 20220336908) discloses that all connecting lines and bars are made of the same conductive material, like aluminum and/or copper materials (Fig.-2, Item- 230, and paragraph [0072]). Also, Otsubo et al . (US 11152327) discloses that all fuses are made of the same conductive material, like aluminum and/or copper materials (Fig.-1, Tem-6, 7, and Claim-6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use all connecting lines, bars and fuses are made of the same conductive material, like aluminum and/or copper materials to achieve better electrical circuit performance through these connectors, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim-6, modified MIHARA et al. does not disclose that the plurality of connecting lines, the plurality of connecting bars, and fuse is made of metal aluminum. However, Jeon et at. (US 20220336908) discloses that all connecting lines and bars are made of the same conductive material, like aluminum and/or copper materials (Fig.-2, Item- 230, and paragraph [0072]). Also, Otsubo et al . (US 11152327) discloses that all fuses are made of the same conductive material, like aluminum and/or copper materials (Fig.-1, Tem-6, 7, and Claim-6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use all connecting lines, bars and fuses are made of the same conductive material, like aluminum and/or copper materials to achieve better electrical circuit performance through these connectors, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim-7, modified MIHARA et al. does not disclose that the plurality of connecting lines, the plurality of connecting bars, and fuse is made of metal copper. However, Jeon et at. (US 20220336908) discloses that all connecting lines and bars are made of the same conductive material, like aluminum and/or copper materials (Fig.-2, Item- 230, and paragraph [0072]). Also, Otsubo et al . (US 11152327) discloses that all fuses are made of the same conductive material, like aluminum and/or copper materials (Fig.-1, Tem-6, 7, and Claim-6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use all connecting lines, bars and fuses are made of the same conductive material, like aluminum and/or copper materials to achieve better electrical circuit performance through these connectors, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim-8, modified MIHARA et al. does not disclose that the plurality of connecting lines, the plurality of connecting bars, and the fuse are made of different conductive materials, and a transfer layer is provided on an end face of a soldering pad close to the fuse or on the side of the fuse end close to the soldering pad. However, Jeon et at. (US 20220336908) discloses that all connecting lines and bars are made of the same conductive material, like aluminum and/or copper materials (Fig.-2, Item- 230, and paragraph [0072]). Also, Otsubo et al . (US 11152327) discloses that all fuses are made of the same conductive material, like aluminum and/or copper materials (Fig.-1, Tem-6, 7, and Claim-6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use all connecting lines, bars and fuses are made of the same conductive material, like aluminum and/or copper materials to achieve better electrical circuit performance through these connectors, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim-9, modified MIHARA et al. does not disclose that the plurality of connecting lines and the plurality of connecting bars are made of metal aluminum, and the fuse is made of metal copper. However, Jeon et at. (US 20220336908) discloses that all connecting lines and bars are made of the same conductive material, like aluminum and/or copper materials (Fig.-2, Item- 230, and paragraph [0072]). Also, Otsubo et al . (US 11152327) discloses that all fuses are made of the same conductive material, like aluminum and/or copper materials (Fig.-1, Tem-6, 7, and Claim-6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use all connecting lines, bars and fuses are made of the same conductive material, like aluminum and/or copper materials to achieve better electrical circuit performance through these connectors, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim-10, modified MIHARA et al. does not disclose that the plurality of connecting lines and the plurality of connecting bars are made of metal copper, and the fuse is made of metal aluminum. However, Jeon et at. (US 20220336908) discloses that all connecting lines and bars are made of the same conductive material, like aluminum and/or copper materials (Fig.-2, Item- 230, and paragraph [0072]). Also, Otsubo et al . (US 11152327) discloses that all fuses are made of the same conductive material, like aluminum and/or copper materials (Fig.-1, Tem-6, 7, and Claim-6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use all connecting lines, bars and fuses are made of the same conductive material, like aluminum and/or copper materials to achieve better electrical circuit performance through these connectors, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OBAIDUL GANI whose telephone number is (571)272-8665. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 - 5:00.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at (571) 272-2342. 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.
OBAIDUL GANI
Examiner
Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights