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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 08/13/25. The applicant has overcome most of the objections and the 35 USC 112 rejections. However, applicant’s amendment has not yet satisfactorily overcome the prior art rejection. Refer to the aforementioned amendment for specific details on applicant's rebuttal arguments and/or remarks. Therefore, the present claim is now finally rejected over the same art/grounds of rejection as formulated hereinbelow and for the reasons of record:
Election/Restrictions and Claim Disposition
Claims 14-17 and 19-21 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/13/14.
Claim 13 is under examination; and claim 18 has been cancelled.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” “The patent presents”, etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Further, note also that the present document is a patent application, it is not a patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation "a second working temperature range" in lines 5. There is somehow insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, it is noted that claim 13 does not recite or include “a first working temperature range" per se. Thus, it is not understood whether there is “a first working temperature range" per se, or "the second working temperature range" is related or unrelated to “the working temperature range” recited therein.
To the extent the present claims were understood by the, please note the following art rejection:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Liang et al 2013/0127423.
As to claim 13:
Liang et al disclose that it is known in the art to make a battery pack system comprising a plurality of battery cells in which the battery pack has a plurality of thermal regions divided by different ranges of temperature so that different battery groups have different working temperatures and/or higher/lower temperatures relative to one another (Abstract), thereby improving the overall performance, response and efficiency of the battery pack system during charging and discharging cycles (Abstract; 0017-0018; 0021-0022; 0024-0027; 0009; see CLAIMS 1-5; see Figures 2-4). In this case, the teachings of Liang et al are sufficient to satisfy applicant’s broadly claimed and structurally undefined hybrid low temperature battery.
PNG
media_image1.png
218
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1
5
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1
5
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
306
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
488
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, the present claims are anticipated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In this respect, applicant has made the allegation that “There is no discussion at all in Liang that the cells are configured to operate in different working temperature ranges” and “the working temperature range of a cell is a property of the cell that is the temperature range within which the cell can achieve a certain performance”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies [i.e., (i) “the cells are configured to operate in different working temperature ranges” and (ii) “which the cell can achieve a certain performance”] are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the present claimed subject matter. If applicant wishes to have those limitations considered for patentability, independent claim must be amended to include or recite the same. It is worthwhile to note that independent claim 13 merely calls for “have a working temperature range having a first lower temperature limit” and “have a second working temperature range having a second lower temperature limit” which is not the same “the cells being configured to operate in different working temperature ranges”. Further, independent claim 13 is wholly silent as to any specific performance whatsoever, thus, it is not seen how the property of the battery cell is able to achieve the intended performance.
In response to applicant's argument that “Liang discloses a battery pack system comprising cells in which the pack has a plurality of thermal regions divided by different ranges of temperature so that different battery groups have different working temperatures and/or higher/lower temperatures relative to one another”, applicant is reminded that the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is substantially the same, performs substantially the same functionality, or is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In response to applicant's argument that “Liang describes a completely different problem and addresses it, unsurprisingly, with a completely different structure”, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be anticipated and/or obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In furtherance, the examiner is of the opinion that Liang et al’s teaching that the battery pack system comprises cells in which the pack has a plurality of thermal regions divided by different ranges of temperature so that different battery groups have different working temperatures and/or higher/lower temperatures relative to one another is sufficient to satisfy applicant’s broadly claimed and structurally undefined subject matter. Moreover, applicant is reminded that "arguments that the alleged anticipatory prior art is ‘nonanalogous art’ or ‘teaches away from the invention’ or is not recognized as solving the problem solved by the claimed invention, [are] not ‘germane’ to a rejection under Section 102" Twin Disc, Inc. v. United States, 231 USPQ 417, 424 (Cl. Ct. 1986) (quoting In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982)). See also State Contracting & Eng’ g Corp. v. Condotte America, Inc., 346 F.3d 1057, 1068, 68 USPQ2d 1481, 1488 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (The question of whether a reference is analogous art is not relevant to whether that reference anticipates. A reference may be directed to an entirely different problem than the one addressed by the inventor, or may be from an entirely different field of endeavor than that of the claimed invention, yet the reference is still anticipatory if it explicitly or inherently discloses every limitation recited in the claims.). Yet further, a reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it. The question whether a reference "teaches away" from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The prior art was held to anticipate the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. See Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005; see also Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1948 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP 2131.05 Nonanalogous or Disparaging Prior Art.
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 RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 pm).
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, Barbara L. Gilliam can be reached on (571) 272-1330. 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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727