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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “an adhesive passage… having an outer boundary coincident with the outer boundary of the first cell receiving recess.”
Claim 16 recites “each adhesive passage… sharing an outer boundary with the respective cell receiving recess.”
Although, Fig. 7, 9, 17 and 19 appears to show shows the cell receiving recess and adhesive passage which has outer boundaries that are contiguous, it is the only support that was found in the in the instant specification for the amends given above for Claims 1 and 16. However, the scope of having the outer boundary of the cell receiving recess being “coincident” (per Claim 1) or “sharing” (per Claim 2) the outer boundary of the adhesive passage in combination with the other limitations of Claims 1 and 16 is not supported because the scope of “coincident” (per Claim 1) or “sharing” is broader than then the structures depicted in Figs. 7, 9, 17 and 19.
Claims 2-15 and 21-25 are rejected due to their dependence of Claim 1.
Claims17-20 and 26-27 are rejected due to their dependence of Claim 16.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an adhesive passage… having an outer boundary coincident with the outer boundary of the first cell receiving recess.” It is unclear what the metes and bounds of what is structurally required by of having coincident outer boundaries. The specification is silent toward this structure providing no guidance to the skilled artisan.
Claim 16 recites “each adhesive passage… sharing an outer boundary with the respective cell receiving recess.” It is unclear what the metes and bounds of what is structurally required by of having shared outer boundaries. The specification is silent toward this structure providing no guidance to the skilled artisan.
Claims 2-15 and 21-25 are rejected due to their dependence of Claim 1.
Claims17-20 and 26-27 are rejected due to their dependence of Claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-2, 4, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringk et al. (US-20200136098-A1) in view of Hongo et al. (US-20160118633-A1) and Kawakami et al. (US-20200076022-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ringk discloses:
a battery pack comprising (arrangement of round cells, see Abstract):
a frame member (cell housing plate 2, see [0006])
including a first cell receiving recess configured to receive a cell end surface of a cell the first cell receiving recess defining a first central axis and an outer boundary; a second cell receiving recess configured to receive a cell end surface of a second cell, the second cell receiving recess defining a second central axis; a third cell receiving recess configured to receive a cell end surface of a third cell, the third cell receiving recess defining a third central axis
The plurality of cut-outs 8 (shown as having at least a first, a second, and third in Fig. 5) for receiving the round cells are structurally capable of receiving the “cell end surface of a cell”, see [0006] and Fig. 5.
The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
an adhesive introduction port configured to receive an adhesive therethrough (a passage channel 18 for receiving a sealant 16, see [0035]);
an adhesive passage extending at least partially about the first cell receiving recess (a collar forming the cavities 14 runs around the full circumference or only around the partial circumference of the cut-outs which receive the round cells, see [0008] and Fig. 2 and 3)
and having an outer boundary coincident with the outer boundary of the first cell receiving recess (the embodiment shown in Figs. 1-3 of Ringk indicates the cavities 14 which are filed by the sealant 16 via the openings 18 are integrated with the cut-outs 8 (i.e., cell receiving recess), see [0034]. Note, there is no requirement in the claim that the cell receiving recess outer boundary to be in continuous direct physical contact with the cell. Therefore, the cavity 14 and the openings 18 (i.e., adhesive introduction port) have at least a portion that has an outer boundary coincident with the outer boundary of cut-outs 8 (i.e., cell receiving recess).),
the adhesive passage in fluid communication with the adhesive introduction port and with the first cell receiving recess (sealant 16 is introduced into the cavities 14 via the openings 18, the collar 10 which forms the cavities has openings 12 arranged in communication with the cut-outs 8 that receive the round cells 22, see Fig. 3 and 5, and [0034].
and a ventilation port in fluid communication with the adhesive passage (Sealant 16 is introduced into the cavities 14 via the openings 18 and the air present inside the cavities is expelled from the openings 20 which are provided for air discharge, see [0034] and Fig. 2 and 3. This indicates the opening 20 (ventilation port) is in fluid communication with opening 18 (adhesive passage) as claimed).
Ringk does not teach:
the adhesive passage configured to introduce adhesive onto the cell end surface of the first cell
To solve the same problem of designing an adhesion-fixation structure for battery cells (see Abstract), Hongo teaches a bus-bar module 6 with the recess 8 and through bores 81 (i.e., adhesive passage) which accommodates the adhesive agent 3, see [0054] and Figs. 3 and 4. Hongo shows in Fig. 3 and 4 that the recess 8 and through bores 81 directs the adhesive agent 3 onto the cell end surface. Hongo further teaches the bus-bar module 6 with the through bore can guide or direct the adhesive agent to more effectively inhibit the adhesive agent 3 from reaching the joining part between the electrode terminal of the battery cells and the terminal tab of the bus bars, see [0021].
Absent a persuasive showing of secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have reconfigured the bus-bar module 6 of Hongo as the cover plate 4 of Ringk in order to direct the adhesive to the desired regions.
It is the Examiner’s position that the modification detailed above teaches the claim limitation “the adhesive passage configured to introduce adhesive onto the cell end surface of the cell.”
Ringk does not teach:
and a strap recess configured to receive a connector strap, the strap recess positioned at least partially between the first central axis, the second central axis, and the third central axis.
at least a portion of the strap recess positioned outside of a projected perimeter of each of the first, second cells, and third cells,
the strap recess spanning a distance between the projected perimeter of the first cell and the projected perimeter of the second cell and spanning a distance between the projected perimeter of the first cell and the projected perimeter of the third cell.
To solve the same problem of designing a battery pack for cylindrical batteries (see [0043]), Kawakami teaches a battery holder 2 with positioning hollows 2D defined by boundary walls 2E that receive bus bars 3, see [0050] and Fig.4-5 and Fig. 6 reproduced below. Kawakami further teaches the positioning hollows 2D allows for the arrangement of the bus bars 3 at predetermined positions, see [0050].
Absent a persuasive showing of secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have included the positioning hollows 2D defined by boundary walls 2E that receive bus bars 3 taught by Kawakami into the structure of modified Ringk in order to arrange the bus bars at predetermined positions.
It is the Examiner’s position the skilled artisan would readily envision and acknowledge that the Kawakami’s positioning hollows 2D meet the claim limitations of:
and a strap recess configured to receive a connector strap, the strap recess positioned at least partially between the first central axis, the second central axis, and the third central axis.
at least a portion of the strap recess positioned outside of a projected perimeter of each of the first, second cells, and third cells,
the strap recess spanning a distance between the projected perimeter of the first cell and the projected perimeter of the second cell and spanning a distance between the projected perimeter of the first cell and the projected perimeter of the third cell.
PNG
media_image1.png
544
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Ringk discloses a collar 10 forming the cavities 14 runs around the with and opening 12 directed toward the cut-outs 8 which receive the round cells, see [0008]. The cavities 14 shown in Fig. 2 and 3 meet the claim limitation of being an annular passage because the cavities 14 are ring-shaped.
Regarding Claim 4, Ringk teaches:
wherein the frame member further includes an outer surface (the cover plate 4 which has an outer surface, see annotated Fig. 3 below, and [0033])
and an inner surface opposite the outer surface (base plate 6 has an inner surface which is opposite the upper surface of the cover plate 4, see annotated Fig. 3 below),
the first cell receiving recess is defined in the inner surface of the frame member (see annotated Fig. 3 below),
the adhesive introduction port is defined in the outer surface of the frame member (see annotated Fig. 3 below),
and the ventilation port is defined in the outer surface of the frame member (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
496
1424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
Regarding Claim 14, Ringk discloses in Fig. 3 the claimed orientation of having the opening 18 (adhesive introduction port) and opening 20 (ventilation port) are generally parallel to each other and the cavities 14 are generally perpendicular to the openings 18 and 20.
Claim(s) 3, 5-13, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringk et al. (US 20200136098 A1) in view of Hongo et al. (US 20160118633 A1) and Kawakami et al. (US-20200076022-A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, with Hermann (US 20120183826 A1) as evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claim 3, Ringk does not teach that the cavities 14 necessarily only run around the partial circumference of the cut-outs 8. However, Ringk teaches this is a suitable embodiment for his cell housing plate 2, see [0008].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have the cavities 14 of the embodiment show in Fig. 2 to only run around the partial circumference of the cut-outs 8, because Ringk teaches that this is a suitable configuration for the devices of his invention.
Ringk does not explicitly disclose a semiannular passage in which semiannular is interpreted as being a half-ring shape.
However, there is a finite number of predictable solutions of how much of the circumference of the cut-out 8 is partially run along by the that the cavities 14 including: 1) less than half the circumference, 2) equal to half the circumference, and 3) greater that half the circumference. It is the Examiner's position that an ordinary artisan would have selected any of these partial ring shapes, including a half-ring shape (i.e., semiannular), because the possible partial ring-shapes represent a finite list of options.
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding Claim 5, Ringk does not teach that openings 18, 20 of the embodiments of Figs. 2 and 3 are necessarily present in the two cell housing plates 2 of system 1 shown in Fig. 5. However, Ringk teaches these are suitable embodiments for his arrangements of round cells.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used the embodiment shown in Figs. 2 and 3 which have openings 18, 20 for the two cell housing plates 2 of system 1 shown in Fig. 5, because Ringk teaches that these are suitable structures for the arrangements of his invention.
Ringk discloses in the annotated Fig. 5 below the following claimed structures and orientations:
the frame member is designated as a first frame member (cell housing plates 2),
and the battery pack further includes a first cell (round cells 22) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end,
the first end of the first cell received in the first cell receiving recess (cut outs 8, see Fig. 2) of the first frame member,
and a second frame member having a first cell receiving recess (cell housing plates 2),
the second end of the first cell received in the first cell receiving recess of the second frame member.
PNG
media_image3.png
728
1256
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5
Regarding Claim 6, using the cell housing plate 2 of Fig. 2 and 3 for the second frame member as rendered obvious above, Ringk teaches:
the second frame member further includes an adhesive introduction port configured to receive an adhesive therethrough (a passage channel 18 for receiving a sealant 16, see [0035]);
an adhesive passage extending at least partially about the first cell receiving recess (a collar forming the cavities 14 runs around the full circumference or only around the partial circumference of the cut-outs which receive the round cells, see [0008] and Fig. 2 and 3),
the adhesive passage in fluid communication with the adhesive introduction port and with the first cell receiving recess (sealant 16 is introduced into the cavities 14 via the openings 18, the collar 10 which forms the cavities has openings 12 arranged in communication with the cut-outs 8 that receive the round cells 22, see Fig. 3 and 5, and [0034]);
and a ventilation port in fluid communication with the adhesive passage (sealant 16 is introduced into the cavities 14 via the openings 18 and the air present inside the cavities is expelled from the openings 20 which are provided for air discharge, see [0034] and Fig. 2 and 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Ringk teaches the systems comprise two cell housing plates 2 arranged above each other, see Fig. 5 and [0036]. As rendered obvious above, the two cell housing plates 2 in system 1 are the same cell housing plates 2 in the embodiment shown in Fig. 2 and 3 and are therefore identical.
Regarding Claim 8, Ringk is silent toward having of fastener openings in his cell housing plates 2.
To solve the same problem of proving battery holder 22a,b for cylindrical batteries (see Fig. 5A-B), Sato teaches a hole portions 34a,b of a fastening portion 34 which extend through battery holder 22a and the battery holder 22b allowing them to be fastened to each other with a screw 24(a fastener) which extend through the hole portion 34a,b, see [0111] and Fig. 7.
Absent a persuasive showing of secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have added the hole portions 34a,b of a fastening portion 34 with a fastening screw 24 in order to securely fasten together the first and second cell housing plates of Ringk’s system 1 (see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Ringk as taught by Sato includes a hole portion 34a which is defined by a fastening portion 34 (i.e., a boss) in a first and second battery holders/cell housing plates.
Regarding Claim 10, Ringk teaches a lateral section of exposed round cell where the two cell housing plates 2 are spaced apart, see annotated Fig. 5 above.
Regarding Claim 11, Ringk teaches the two cell housing plates 2 are coupled by the round cell 22, see annotated Fig. 5 above.
Regarding Claim 12 and 13, Ringk does not teach that openings 18 and 20 have “a frustoconical shape that is narrowest adjacent the adhesive passage.”
It is noted, that there is no significant difference between a cylindrical and a frustoconical shapes, as both shapes provide passages for adhesives. Further, frustoconical shapes were well known in the art at the time the invention was made (as evidenced by Hermann, see Fig. 3). Hermann’s encapsulant injection ports 109 function both as where adhesive is injected and as a vent for displaced air, see [0025].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the openings 18 and/or 20 of Ringk to be frustoconical shaped, as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding Claim 16, Ringk teaches:
A battery pack comprising (arrangement of round cells, see Abstract):
a frame member including a plurality of cell receiving recesses, each cell receiving recess defining a central axis (plurality of cut-outs 8 for receiving the round cells, see [0006] and Fig. 2 and 3),
a plurality of adhesive introduction ports (several openings 18 are show in Fig. 2 and 3),
each adhesive introduction port corresponding to a respective cell receiving recess, a plurality of adhesive passages (each opening 18 is shown to correspond to a cavity 14, see Fig. 2 and 3),
each adhesive passage extending at least partially about the respective cell receiving recess (see Figs. 1-3),
and sharing an other boundary with the respective cell receiving recess (the embodiment shown in Figs. 1-3 of Ringk indicates the cavities 14 which are filed by the sealant 16 via the openings 18 are integrated with the cut-outs 8 (i.e., cell receiving recess), see [0034]. Note, there is no requirement in the claim that the cell receiving recess outer boundary to be in continuous direct physical contact with the cell. Therefore, the cavity 14 and the openings 18 (i.e., adhesive introduction port) have at least a portion that has an outer boundary shared with the outer boundary of cut-outs 8 (i.e., cell receiving recess).),
and a plurality of ventilation ports (several cavities 14 are show in Fig. 2 and 3),
each ventilation port in fluid communication with a respective adhesive passage (Sealant 16 is introduced into the cavities 14 via the openings 18 and the air present inside the cavities is expelled from the openings 20 which are provided for air discharge, see [0034] and Fig. 2 and 3. This indicates the opening 20 (ventilation port) is in fluid communication with opening 18 (adhesive passage) as claimed.);
Ringk does not teach that openings 18, 20 of the embodiments of Figs. 2 and 3 are necessarily present in the two cell housing plates 2 of system 1 shown in Fig. 5. However, Ringk teaches these are suitable embodiments for his arrangements of round cells.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used the embodiment shown in Figs. 2 and 3 which have openings 18, 20 for the two cell housing plates 2 of system 1 shown in Fig. 5, because Ringk teaches that these are suitable structures for the arrangements of his invention.
a plurality of cells (The system 1 of Fig. 5 teaches a plurality of cells.),
Ringk does not teach:
each cell including a cell end surface received in the respective cell receiving recess; and adhesive received in each respective adhesive passage,
the adhesive contacting the cell end surface of each respective cell to couple the cell to the frame member.
To solve the same problem of designing an adhesion-fixation structure for battery cells (see Abstract), Hongo teaches a bus-bar module 6 has holder holes 21 (i.e., cell receiving recess) which holds the multiple battery cells, see [0044]. The holder holes 21 is shown as receiving the cell end surface received in the respective cell receiving recess in Fig. 4. Hongo shows in Fig. 4 that the recess 8 and through bores 81 are filled the adhesive agent 3 with the adhesive contacting the cell end surface. Hongo further teaches the bus-bar module 6 with the through bore can guide or direct the adhesive agent to more effectively inhibit the adhesive agent 3 from reaching the joining part between the electrode terminal of the battery cells and the terminal tab of the bus bars, see [0021].
Absent a persuasive showing of secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have reconfigured the bus-bar module 6 as the cover plate 4 of Ringk in order to direct the adhesive to the desired regions.
Ringk does not teach:
a strap recess positioned at least partially between the central axis of three adjacent cell receiving recesses,
at least a portion of the strap recess positioned outside of a projected perimeter of each of the plurality of cells and extending to the projected perimeters of three adjacent cells of the plurality of cells;
and a connector strap positioned in the strap recess.
To solve the same problem of designing a battery pack for cylindrical batteries (see [0043]), Kawakami teaches a battery holder 2 with positioning hollows 2D defined by boundary walls 2E that receive bus bars 3, see [0050] and Fig.4-5 and Fig. 6 reproduced above. Kawakami further teaches the positioning hollows 2D allows for the arrangement of the bus bars 3 at predetermined positions, see [0050].
Absent a persuasive showing of secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have included the positioning hollows 2D defined by boundary walls 2E that receive bus bars 3 taught by Kawakami into the structure of modified Ringk in order to arrange the bus bars at predetermined positions.
It is the Examiner’s position the skilled artisan would readily envision and acknowledge that the Kawakami’s positioning hollows 2D meet the claim limitations of:
a strap recess positioned at least partially between the central axis of three adjacent cell receiving recesses,
at least a portion of the strap recess positioned outside of a projected perimeter of each of the plurality of cells and extending to the projected perimeters of three adjacent cells of the plurality of cells;
and a connector strap positioned in the strap recess.
Regarding Claim 17, Ringk discloses the cavities 14 meet the claim limitation of being an annular passage because the cavities 14 are ring-shaped, see Fig. 2 and 3. Ringk discloses the batteries used in his disclosure are round (i.e., cylindrical) cells, see Title.
Regarding Claim 18, Ringk does not teach that the cavities 14 necessarily cover a partial circumference of the cut-outs 8. However, Ringk teaches this is a suitable embodiment for his cell housing plate 2, see [0008].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have the cavities 14 of the embodiment show in Fig. 2 to only run around the partial circumference of the cut-outs 8, because Ringk teaches that this is a suitable configuration for the devices of his invention.
Ringk does not explicitly disclose a semiannular passage in which semiannular is interpreted as being a half-ring shape.
However, there is a finite number of predictable solutions of how much of the circumference of the cut-out 8 is partially run along by the that the cavities 14 including: 1) less than half the circumference, 2) equal to half the circumference, and 3) greater that half the circumference. It is the Examiner's position that an ordinary artisan would have selected any of these partial ring shapes, including a half-ring shape (i.e., semiannular), because the possible partial ring-shapes represent a finite list of options.
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Ringk discloses the batteries used in his disclosure are round (i.e., cylindrical) cells, see Title.
Regarding Claim 19, Ringk discloses in the annotated Fig. 5 above the following claimed structures and orientations:
wherein the frame member is a first frame member,
and further comprising a second frame member coupled to the plurality of cells on an opposite end of the cells from the first frame member.
Regarding Claim 20, Ringk teaches the systems comprise two cell housing plates 2 arranged above each other, see Fig. 5 and [0036]. As rendered obvious above, the two cell housing plates 2 in system 1 are the same cell housing plates 2 in the embodiment shown in Fig. 2 and 3 and are therefore identical.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Ringk in view of Kawakami shows in Ringk Fig. 3 and Kawakami Fig. 4 that the skilled artisan could readily envision that the direction parallel to the first central axis, a portion of the strap recess (positioning hollows 2D, Kawakami -Fig. 4) overlaps with a portion of the first cell receiving recess (cut-outs 8, Ringk Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 22, as depicted by Ringk Fig. 3 and Kawakami Fig. 4 the structure is repeated in both references for a plurality of battery cells, therefore, showing “in a direction parallel to the second central axis, a portion of the strap recess overlaps with a portion of the second cell receiving recess.”
Regarding Claim 23, modified Ringk in view of Kawakami does not explicitly disclose the following orientations:
(per claim 23) wherein the adhesive introduction port is positioned outside the strap recess.
(per claim 24) wherein the ventilation port is positioned outside the strap recess.
(per claim 25) wherein the adhesive passage is positioned outside the strap recess.
However, there is a finite number of predictable solutions of positioning the claimed adhesive introduction port, ventilation port, adhesive passage in reference to the strap recess including: 1) outside the strap recess, 2) inside the strap recess, and 3) on the boarder of the strap recess. It is the Examiner's position that an ordinary artisan would have selected any of these placements, including outside the strap recess, because the possible positions represent a finite list of options, all of which are obvious.
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding Claim 26, as depicted by Ringk Fig. 3 and Kawakami Fig. 4 the structure is repeated in both references for a plurality of battery cells, therefore, showing “in a direction parallel to the second central axis, a portion of the strap recess overlaps with a portion of the second cell receiving recess.”
Regarding Claim 27, modified Ringk in view of Kawakami does not explicitly disclose the following orientations:
wherein at least one of the plurality of adhesive introduction ports is positioned outside the strap recess.
However, there is a finite number of predictable solutions of positioning the claimed adhesive introduction port in reference to the strap recess including: 1) outside the strap recess, 2) inside the strap recess, and 3) on the boarder of the strap recess. It is the Examiner's position that an ordinary artisan would have selected any of these placements, including outside the strap recess, because the possible positions represent a finite list of options, all of which are obvious.
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ringk et al. (US 20200136098 A1) in view of Hongo et al. (US 20160118633 A1) and Kawakami et al. (US-20200076022-A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Okura (US 20160149174 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Ringk does not teach the cut-outs 8 have a “frustoconical section and a cylindrical section.”
To solve the same problem of adhering batteries to a holder (see Abstract), Okura teaches a holder with a circular holding hole 21 that has tapered surface 21h which makes a frustoconical shape, see Fig. 13 and [0060]. Sato further teaches that the tapered surface forms a gap G for adhesive to be smoothly filled, see [0060].
Absent a persuasive showing of secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have added tapered surface of the cut-out 8 in the base plate 6 of Ringk in order to form a gap in which adhesive from the cavities 14 could be filled with further adhering the round cells and cell housing plates together.
The above described modification has a frustoconical section in the base plate 6 and the cut-out 8 of the cover plate 4 is cylindrical in shape (see Fig. 2), therefore, the claim limitation of “the first cell receiving recess includes a frustoconical section and a cylindrical section” is met.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/04/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed below.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7-8, with respect to rejections under U.S.C. 35 § 103 of Claims 1-27 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The previously cited Ringk teaches the embodiment shown in Figs. 1-3 of Ringk indicates the cavities 14 which are filed by the sealant 16 via the openings 18 are integrated with the cut-outs 8 (i.e., cell receiving recess), see [0034]. Note, there is no requirement in the claim that the cell receiving recess outer boundary to be in continuous direct physical contact with the cell. Therefore, the cavity 14 and the openings 18 (i.e., adhesive introduction port) have at least a portion that has an outer boundary coincident/shared with the outer boundary of cut-outs 8 (i.e., cell receiving recess).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached on 303-297-4684. 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.
/K.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721