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 1-2, and 9-10 are 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. The new matter, “a voltage potential of the second tab of the first battery cell is equal to a voltage potential of the first tab of the second battery cell and a voltage potential of the second tab of the second battery cell is equal to twice the voltage potential of the second [reflecting the new amendment] tab of the first battery cell” is required to be canceled.
The Office notes that despite the amendment, the underlying analysis presented previously is largely identical. This analysis is reproduced below:
Paragraph [00158] of the present specification recites “[00158] The cell holder264 according to the present disclosure configures the battery cell tabs216 to optimize the spacing between the tabs216 of adjacent battery cells of the set of battery cells200 once the tabs216 are connected taking into consideration the relative voltages of adjacent battery cells, e.g., 210, 220, 230 once the set of battery cells200 are connected,” and the specification at [0033 – 37] recites a first and second tab, with relative descriptions of distance from each other. However, it would not be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date how the relative distances or the “relative voltages,” teach the term “is equal to twice the voltage potential” or “a voltage potential of the second tab of the first battery cell is equal to a voltage potential of the first tab,” because while the presence of voltage potential is implied, the magnitude of this voltage potential based upon the relative distances would not be implied.
During the interview of 12/03/2024, Applicant indicated the distances between slots were intended to group the tabs by potential, or in other words based on “the relative voltages of adjacent battery cells,” and that the slots created distance between the tabs via their construction. This appears to be supported by passages like, “[00124] the first tab . . . is forced the distance . . . toward the bottom wall . . . by the lower taper section of the first portion of the first rib . . . . simultaneously, the second tab . . . of the first battery cell . . . is forced the distance H24 (slightly less than the first tab 216b) towards the bottom wall . . . by the lower taper of the second portion of the first rib . . . of the first set of ribs . . .and controlled by the first portion of the third rib . . . and received in the first slot . . . of the second column of slots,” as well as Fig. 9A-C, 13, and 14. However, this is distinguishable from what is presented with the “voltage is equal to twice the voltage potential” or “a voltage potential of the second tab of the first battery cell is equal to a voltage potential of the first tab,” because the construction of the PCB slots differs from the intended voltage relationship.
The Office notes these claim terms are otherwise novel and non-obvious; the withdrawal of the previous rejections are maintained. Amendment to remove the new matter and capture the previously allowed subject matter via the construction described in the specification is suggested.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “Applicant has amended claim 1 to correct a typographical error made in the reply dated January 17, 2025. This amendment does not contain new matter and is supported by the originally filed application, at least in paragraphs 98, 100, 149 and 150 and Figures 11A, 21A, 21B, 21C, 21D, and 29A. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office reconsider and withdraw the rejection of claims 1, 2, 9 and 10 under 35 USC §112.”
Regarding paragraphs 98, 100, 149, and 150, none of the cited passages present an explicit teaching of the voltage potentials; the only recitation of voltage is “relative voltages,” discussed above. Paragraphs 98 and 100 of the present specification describe in detail the heat sealing of the first and second tab [0098], the alignment and directionality of the tabs [00100], the folding of the tabs [00149], and the electric coupling of the tabs to the pads [00150]. Unfortunately these do not present the specific magnitudes of the voltage potentials of the first and second tabs, although there is support for these voltages differing. Likewise, the figures support the relative spacing of the tabs but not their voltage potentials (at least such that the indications that the voltage potentials are “equal” or “twice” another value are not supported by the present specification).
For these foregoing reasons, removal of the new matter remains required, and the rejections of claims 1-2, and 9-10 are maintained.
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 KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights