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 Status
Claims 8 and 12-14 have been cancelled, and claims 1-4, 7, and 9-10 have been amended. Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 15-17 are currently pending, however claim 17 has been withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawabe (JP 2000289794A, Espacenet translation provided for reference).
With respect to claim 1, Kawabe discloses a device (Fig. 1) for receiving battery cells (16 – plate like object) with a base frame (1) (Fig. 6), characterized in that stacking columns (4 – support column) are arranged on the base frame (1) (Fig. 1), which have rotatable latches (10a-10h receiving pieces) which limit a passage for the battery cells (16) ([0008], Fig. 6), wherein the latches are accommodated in a housing (2 and 4) with two side panels (labeled – opposing sides of column 4) (Fig. 1 - below), each latch (10a-h) rotates around an axis of rotation (characterized by shaft portions 11) which penetrates the two side panels (labeled) of the housing (4) (Fig. 1 – above and Fig. 5), a torsion spring (11 – shaft portion) is arranged on the axis of rotation (Fig. 5), the torsion spring (11) is supported between a rear wall of the housing (2 and 4) and a bearing surface (13 – front end portion) of the latch (10a-h) (Fig. 5), and the latch (10a-10h) rests in a working position on a support (11) which extends between the two side panels (labeled) of the housing (2 and 4) (Fig. 1 – above and Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 2, Kawabe discloses a distance between two opposing latches (10h and opposing column 4 10h which is cut off in fig. 5) in the working position (Fig. 1C) is smaller than a width and/or a length of the battery cell (16) (Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 3, Kawabe discloses he latches (10a-h) rotate from a standby position (10g in Fig. 5) to the working position (10h in fig. 5) when the battery cell (16) is inserted between stacking columns (4) (Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 4, Kawabe discloses in the standby position (10g in Fig. 5), a distance between two opposing latches (10g and opposing column’s 10g which is cut off) is less than a width and/or a length of the battery cell (16) (Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 5, Kawabe discloses a plurality of the latches (10a-h) is rotatable to a rest position (10a-f) in which a distance between two opposing latches (10a-f and opposing column’s 10a-f which is cut of) is greater than a width and/or a length of the battery cell (16) (Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 6, Kawabe discloses a stacking column (4) is provided with a plurality of latches (10a-h) which are connected to one another via a linkage (14 – rear portion) (Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 7, Kawabe discloses that the linkage (14) of a lowermost latch (10h) entrains the next-higher latch (10g) from its rest position (10g in Fig. 4) into the standby position (10g in Fig. 5) when it is rotated from the standby position (10h in Fig. 4) into the working position (10h in Fig. 5).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Side plate II)][AltContent: textbox (Side plate I)]
PNG
media_image1.png
596
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, Kawabe discloses support wings (15 – support plate) are formed on the rear of the housing (2 and 4) (Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 10, Kawabe discloses a guide strip (9 – lateral deviation prevention frame) protrudes forward from the housing (2 and 4) in the direction of the battery cells (16) (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 11, Kawabe discloses an upper edge of the guide strip (9) is offset outwards (Fig. 1).
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 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. 20230080954).
With respect to claim 15, Kawabe discloses latches (10a-h) as part of a structural support for battery cells (1) (Fig. 1), but does not disclose the latch is covered with a damping pad for the battery cell.
Lee discloses a case (110) for battery cells (120) (Fig. 1) and teaches the case can comprise a damping pad (130) for the battery cells (120) (Fig. 1). Lee further teaches that the damping pad (130) works to prevent damage where it contacts the battery cells (120) (Fig. 1, [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was filed to include the damping pad taught by Lee to the latches disclosed by Kawabe in order to prevent damage to the battery cells.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakurai. (U.S. 20150140405).
With respect to claim 16, Kawabe discloses the latch (10a-h) consists of a bearing surface (13) made of laterally folded side strips which acts as a support under battery cells (16) (Fig. 5), but does not disclose the laterally folded side strips made of metal.
Sakurai discloses a support (16 – bottom fastening frame) under battery cells (11) and teaches the support is made of metal ([0017]). Sakurai further teaches that the metal is suitable to support the undersides of battery cells (11) (Fig. 1, [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to construct the latches disclosed by Kawabe out of metal as taught by Sakrai in order for the latches to be able to support the cells.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9 of response, filed 09/02/2025, with respect to the drawing objections and claims 1-4, 7, 9, and 13-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections, claim objections of claims 1, 3-4, and 13-14, and the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 2-4, 7, 9, and 13 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are premised on the assertion that now that amended claim 1 includes the subject matter of previously pending claims 8, and 12-14, the prior art no longer reads on claim 1. However, no specific arguments were made about which limitations in amended claim are not present in the prior art. Instead, the arguments are focused on the assertion that the prior art discloses features which highlight the instability of its own holding mechanism, as the rear sections of the receiving elements are heavier than the tip sections, arguing then that the plates-like objects are not held steady. However, this argument bears no weight to how the prior art does not read on claim 1 as written, specifically with the new claim limitations, as no mention of weight and/or positioning means has been claimed outside of a “working position,” which is not described. Therefore, in the absence of any persuasive arguments to the contrary, the prior art still reads on claim 1.
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 JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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 Gilliam can be reached at (572)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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727