DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-8 are pending.
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 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, 3, 4, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamane et al. [US 20230126915].
As to claim 1. Yamane discloses A voltage detection device comprising:
a voltage detection portion to detect a voltage of at least one battery cell, [figs. 3, 4, 0061] a circuit board 20, for measuring voltage of the energy storage device 11, using detection line 13 a connected to the circuit board 20, [0051] energy storage device 11 is a battery;
a bus bar, [fig. 4, 0058] bus bars 13, at least partially to electrically connect the at least one battery cell to an external apparatus, [fig. 3, 4, 0061] connect the battery terminals 11 b to a circuit board 20;
a first attachment body to which the bus bar is attached, [fig. 4, 0059] bus bar frame 12; and
a second attachment body, [fig. 4, 0062, 0064] outer case 18, that includes the case 14, 15, 17, to which the voltage detection portion is attached, [0064],
wherein the first attachment body has a heat resistance, [0058, 0072] made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) material with higher heat resistance, and
a heat resistance of the second attachment body is lower than a heat resistance of the first attachment body, [0072] the case body 14 is made of polypropylene (PP), making the heat resistance of the whole case 18 to be the same as the case 14.
As to claim 3. Yamane discloses The voltage detection device according to claim 1, wherein the first attachment body contains at least one kind of polybutylene terephthalate and modified polyphenylene ether, [0058] polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) and polyphenylene ether (PPE (including modified PPE)).
As to claim 4. Yamane discloses The voltage detection device according to claim 1, wherein the second attachment body contains polypropylene, [0072] the outer case body 14 can be made of polypropylene (PP).
As to claim 6. Yamane discloses A battery module comprising: the voltage detection device according to claim 1; and the at least one battery cell, [fig. 4, 0051] energy storage devices 11 are battery cells.
As to claim 7. Yamane discloses The voltage detection device according to claim 1, wherein the voltage detection portion is in direct contact with the second attachment body, [figs. 3, 4, 0064] circuit board 20 mounted directly on the case 15, [0062] which is part of the case 18.
As to claim 8. Yamane discloses The voltage detection device according to claim 1, wherein the bus bar is indirectly connected to the voltage detection portion via the first attachment body, [figs. 3, 4, 0059] bus bar 13 is part of the system 10, the system 10 comprises the bus bar frame 12, the detection circuit 20, therefore, the bus bar is indirectly connected to the circuit 20.
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 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(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane in view of Tononishi [US 20170244139].
As to claim 5. Yamane fails to disclose The voltage detection device according to claim 1, wherein the first attachment body includes a fiber material.
Tononishi teaches an energy storage apparatus with a bus bar 600, and a heat shielding plate to hold he bus bar, [fig. 3, 5, 0153]; wherein the heat shielding plate is made of reinforced glass fibers, [0152].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yamane with that of Tononishi so that the first attachment body can be made to fit the bus bar contour.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Yamane fails to disclose, teach or suggest a configuration where the bus bar is attached to the alleged first attachment body 12.
Response 1: Yamane [fig. 4, 0059] specifically states “The plurality of bus bars 13 are placed and positioned on the bus bar frame 12.”.
Argument 2: Yamane fails to disclose, teach or suggest a configuration where the alleged voltage detection portion 13a is attached to the alleged second attachment body 15.
Response 2: The Office Action is not relying on detection line 13a to read on the claimed voltage detection portion. The Office Action is relying on the circuit board 20 to read on the claimed voltage detection portion.
Conclusion
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 BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights