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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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.
Claims 1-2, 7-9 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SHINDO (CN 102751465 A).
Regarding claim 1, SHINDO teaches a voltage monitoring module for monitoring a voltage of a battery pack (200) configured such that a plurality of sections, each of which includes a plurality of battery cells (210) arranged in a first direction, is arranged in the first direction, comprising: a plurality of flexible printed boards (100) (as shown in fig. 26), wherein each of the plurality of flexible printed boards (100) has a body portion (110) and a plurality of branch portions (121) (as shown in fig. 26), the body portion (110) extends in the first direction (as shown in fig. 26), each of the plurality of branch portions (121) is branched from the body portion (110) (as shown in fig. 19), and is arranged at intervals in the first direction (as shown in fig. 26), each of the plurality of branch portions (121) is provided with a connection terminal (222) on a tip end side (as shown in fig. 23), and the plurality of flexible printed boards (100) is each arranged corresponding to each of the plurality of sections (as shown in fig. 25), and the connection terminal (222) is connected to a corresponding one of terminals (211 or 212) of the plurality of battery cells (210) of the section corresponding to the flexible printed board (100) (as shown in fig. 25).
Regarding claim 2, SHINDO teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, SHINDO teaches wherein the body portion (110) of one or more of the flexible printed boards (100) has a first extending portion and a second extending portion (in fig. 26, the second 100 from left to right shows a first extending portion having the branches 121 and a second extending portion not having branches 121), the plurality of branch portions is branched from the first extending portion of the body portion (as shown in fig. 26), the first extending portion extends along the section corresponding to one of the plurality of flexible printed boards (100), and the second extending portion extends along the section corresponding to the flexible printed board (first 100, from left to right in fig. 26) other than the one of the plurality of flexible printed boards (as shown in fig. 26).
Regarding claim 7, SHINDO teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, SHINDO teaches a plate-shaped member, wherein the plate-shaped member (300) is attached to the body portion (110) of at least one of the flexible printed boards (100) (as shown in fig. 23 and 27).
Regarding claim 8, SHINDO teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, SHINDO teaches wherein the body portions (110) of the plurality of flexible printed boards (100) are separated from each other (a shown in fig. 26).
Regarding claim 9, SHINDO teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, SHINDO teaches a coupling portion (400), wherein the coupling portion extends in a second direction perpendicular to both a normal direction and the first direction of the body portion (110) (as shown in fig. 21), and the body portions (110) of the plurality of flexible printed boards (100) are coupled to each other via the coupling portion (400).
Regarding claim 16, SHINDO teaches a battery unit (M) comprising: a battery pack (200); and a voltage monitoring module that monitors a voltage of the battery pack (200), wherein the battery pack (200) has a plurality of sections arranged in a first direction, and each of the plurality of sections has a plurality of battery cells (210) arranged in the first direction, the voltage monitoring module has a plurality of flexible printed boards (100) (as shown in fig. 26), wherein each of the plurality of flexible printed boards (100) has a body portion (110) and a plurality of branch portions (121) (as shown in fig. 26), the body portion (110) extends in the first direction (as shown in fig. 26), each of the plurality of branch portions (121) is branched from the body portion (110) (as shown in fig. 19), and is arranged at intervals in the first direction (as shown in fig. 26), each of the plurality of branch portions (121) is provided with a connection terminal (222) on a tip end side (as shown in fig. 23), and the plurality of flexible printed boards (100) is each arranged corresponding to each of the plurality of sections (as shown in fig. 25), and the connection terminal (222) is connected to a corresponding one of terminals (211 or 212) of the plurality of battery cells (210) of the section corresponding to the flexible printed board (100) (as shown in fig. 25).
Regarding claim 17, SHINDO teaches the limitations of claim 16, in addition, SHINDO teaches wherein the body portion (110) of one or more of the flexible printed boards (100) has a first extending portion and a second extending portion (in fig. 26, the second 100 from left to right shows a first extending portion having the branches 121 and a second extending portion not having branches 121), the plurality of branch portions is branched from the first extending portion of the body portion (as shown in fig. 26), the first extending portion extends along the section corresponding to one of the plurality of flexible printed boards (100), and the second extending portion extends along the section corresponding to the flexible printed board (first 100, from left to right in fig. 26) other than the one of the plurality of flexible printed boards (as shown in fig. 26).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHINDO (CN 102751465 A) in view of YAMADA (WO 2020/246111 A1).
Regarding claim 1, SHINDO teaches the limitations of claim 1.
SHINDO fails to specifically teach wherein part of some of the plurality of branch portions is included in a rectangle circumscribed around the body portion in plan view. However, YAMADA teaches wherein part of some of the plurality of branch portions (18) is included in a rectangle (68) circumscribed around the body portion (10) in plan view (as shown in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the part of some of the plurality of branch portions included in a rectangle circumscribed around the body portion in plan view as taught by YAMADA with the invention of SHINDO in order to protect the branches.
Claims 10-13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHINDO (CN 102751465 A) in view of JP 7385807 B2.
Regarding claim 10, SHINDO teaches the limitations of claim 2.
SHINDO fails to specifically teach wherein the second extending portion has a stretchable portion extendable and contractable in the first direction. However, JP 7385807 B2 teaches wherein the second extending portion (23) has a stretchable portion (31) extendable and contractable in the first direction (as shown in fig. 7-8).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the second extending portion has a stretchable portion extendable and contractable in the first direction as taught by JP 7385807 B2 with the invention of SHINDO in order to have additional flexibility when making contact with the battery cells.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of SHINDO and JP 7385807 B2 teaches the limitations of claim 10, in addition, JP 7385807 B2 teaches wherein at the stretchable portion (31), parts of the body portion (23) overlap with each other by the body portion being folded back (as shown in fig. 7-8).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of SHINDO and JP 7385807 B2 teaches the limitations of claim 11, in addition, JP 7385807 B2 teaches wherein at the stretchable portion (31), part of the body portion (23) is folded so as to go back and forth one and a half times or more in the first direction, and the part of the body portion (23) meanders in a normal direction of the body portion (as shown in fig. 7-8).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of SHINDO and JP 7385807 B2 teaches the limitations of claim 10, in addition, JP 7385807 B2 teaches wherein at the stretchable portion (31), the body portion is curved downward (as shown in fig. 7-8).
Regarding claim 18, SHINDO teaches the limitations of claim 17.
SHINDO fails to specifically teach wherein the second extending portion has a stretchable portion extendable and contractable in the first direction. However, JP 7385807 B2 teaches wherein the second extending portion (23) has a stretchable portion (31) extendable and contractable in the first direction (as shown in fig. 7-8).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the second extending portion has a stretchable portion extendable and contractable in the first direction as taught by JP 7385807 B2 with the invention of SHINDO in order to have additional flexibility when making contact with the battery cells.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of SHINDO and JP 7385807 B2 teaches the limitations of claim 18, in addition, JP 7385807 B2 teaches wherein the voltage monitoring module further has a plurality of plate-shaped members (30), and an end portion of the body portion (23) of one or more of the flexible printed boards on a side on which the first extending portion is provided (as shown in fig. 9) and a portion of the body portion (23) of the one or more of the flexible printed boards between the first extending portion and the stretchable portion (31) are fixed to the battery cells (10) via the plate-shaped members (30) (as shown in fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the voltage monitoring module further have a plurality of plate-shaped members, and an end portion of the body portion of one or more of the flexible printed boards on a side on which the first extending portion is provided and a portion of the body portion of the one or more of the flexible printed boards between the first extending portion and the stretchable portion are fixed to the battery cells via the plate-shaped members. as taught by JP 7385807 B2 with the invention of SHINDO in order to securely attach the voltage monitoring module to the battery cells.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHINDO (CN 102751465 A) in view of FAN et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0083502).
Regarding claim 20, SHINDO teaches the limitations of claim 16.
SHINDO fails to specifically teach a plurality of partition plates, wherein the plurality of partition plates partitions the battery pack into the plurality of sections. However, FAN et al. teaches a plurality of partition plates (133), wherein the plurality of partition plates (133) partitions the battery pack (100) into the plurality of sections (as shown in fig. 1C and disclosed in para. 0150).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the plurality of partition plates, wherein the plurality of partition plates partitions the battery pack into the plurality of sections as taught by FAN et al. with the invention of SHINDO in order to isolate the plurality of battery cells from each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 14-15 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art fails to specifically teach a voltage monitoring module for monitoring a voltage of a battery pack configured such that a plurality of sections, each of which includes a plurality of battery cells arranged in a first direction, is arranged in the first direction, comprising: wherein a length dimension of the first extending portion in a second direction perpendicular to both a normal direction and the first direction of the body portion is greater than a length dimension of the second extending portion in the second direction, in combination with all the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art fails to specifically teach a voltage monitoring module for monitoring a voltage of a battery pack configured such that a plurality of sections, each of which includes a plurality of battery cells arranged in a first direction, is arranged in the first direction, comprising: wherein each of the plurality of branch portions includes a first-direction extending portion extending in the first direction, and a length dimension of the first-direction extending portion of each of the plurality of branch portions of one or more of the flexible printed boards (100) increases as the first-direction extending portion approaches a center of the body portion from both ends of the body portion in the first direction, in combination with all the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art fails to specifically teach a voltage monitoring module for monitoring a voltage of a battery pack configured such that a plurality of sections, each of which includes a plurality of battery cells arranged in a first direction, is arranged in the first direction, comprising: wherein the plurality of branch portions includes an offset branch portion, and the offset branch portion is provided at a position different from a position of the branch portion other than the offset branch portion in a second direction perpendicular to both a normal direction and the first direction of the body portion, and as viewed in the second direction, part of the offset branch portion and part of the branch portion other than the offset branch portion overlap with each other, in combination with all the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claims 14-15, the prior art fails to specifically teach a voltage monitoring module for monitoring a voltage of a battery pack configured such that a plurality of sections, each of which includes a plurality of battery cells arranged in a first direction, is arranged in the first direction, comprising: further comprising: a case that houses the stretchable portion, wherein the case restricts upward and downward bulging of the stretchable portion, in combination with all the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights