DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/14/2025 has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
This section is repeated from the prior Office Action. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, in the reply filed on 4/15/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 5-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
The prior Office Action objections to claim 1 are withdrawn in view of the corrections filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The prior Office Action rejection of claim 1, and thus dependent claim 4, 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn in view of the correction filed.
5. Claim 1, and thus dependent claims 4 and 10-13; claim 10, and thus dependent claims 11 and 12; and claim 12, are 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.
A) Claim 1, final two three lines recites, “…such that the inclined portion interferes with the inclined surface of an adjacent resin frame…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. An inclined surface of an adjacent resin frame has not previously been recited in the claim.
B) Claim 1 defines two inclined surfaces: an inclined surface of the resin frame assembly, and [an] inclined surface of an adjacent resin frame. Claims 10 and 12 reference, “the inclined surface” which renders each claim indefinite as it is not clear which of the two inclined surfaces is being referenced of the two options.
Given the claimed construct is toward the resin frame assembly as defined, for compact prosecution purposes, it will be assumed the inclined surface of claims 10 and 12 is that of the inclined surface of the resin frame assembly.
Appropriate correction is required.
6. 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.
7. Claims 10, and thus dependent claims 11 and 12; claim 11; claim 12; and claim 13 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.
Applicant provides new claims 10-13 with the instant response, wherein none of the claim limitations presented appear to have a written description basis (see search history below looking for the new limitations within the PGPUB and producing zero hits):
PNG
media_image1.png
485
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant provides no comments or explanation as to support for the newly added limitations and how the features are supported, wherein per Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) this is sufficient to make such a rejection:
Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a "simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.")
Future claim amendments should be accompanied with comments that specifically point out support for any claim amendments. See MPEP 2163, section 3(b); MPEP § 714.02; and MPEP § 2163.06:
With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
"Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."
Although more is not required under the circumstances, an analysis follows for clarity of the record. Figs. 8-11 are drawn to the embodiment with the angle comparison feature (claim 1, last four lines) (P40-42 of the specification as filed). The full scope of, “…the inclined surface 346 is inclined toward the first side of the resin frame…” does not appear supported given there is no reference of the inclination feature relative to any other feature. For example, selecting the reference point of a distal end thereof that is furthest away from the main surface 310, the inclined surface 346 is inclined toward the second side of the resin frame. Claim 10 could be corrected by way of the language that is supported in the disclosure:
(P30): The inclined surface 346 is inclined to be directed upward as the inclined surface 346 is distanced from the main body portion 310 of the resin frame (P30).
Note that the main body portion has not been previously recited in the claim set, so it should be “a main body portion,” and “upward” would have to be defined relative to a claimed entity for reference (e.g., “directed upward toward the first side of the resin frame…”)
The same issue is present in claim 11: the full scope of “the inclined portion is inclined away from the first side of the resin frame” has no context in terms of the reference point in which this is being made. From the reference point of the most distal end thereof, the opposite is true – the inclined portion of 350 is inclined toward the first side of the resin frame. Accordingly, given the language has no basis within the written description, and the sole basis appears to be the figures, what is shown in the drawings must be accurately claimed such that other interpretations are not present as this creates a new matter issue in terms of claim language not supported the drawings from which the sole support is being drawn.
As to claim 12, the support portion 324, 343 is between the battery cell 2 and the inclined surface 346 in a height direction, the height direction perpendicular to the thickness direction and extending from the opposite second side of the resin frame to the first side of the resin frame. The claim; however, recites the feature relative to “…in a direction perpendicular to the thickness direction…” (no basis in the written description) which could be either the height direction or the width direction. The figures, which are the sole basis for support, only illustrate that this feature is met with respect to the height direction as defined above. Accordingly, the full scope of what is presented in the claim is not supported by the drawings (sole support of the language).
As to claim 13, the language is not found within the written description, is not shown in the drawings, and appears to be an impossible configuration. Fig. 9 is reproduced below with annotations:
PNG
media_image2.png
495
903
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Battery cell 1 and the middle resin frame constituting the resin frame assembly of claim 1 are labeled above with some of the claim limitations labeled for clarity. The inclined portion of protruding portion 350 of the resin frame assembly and the inclined surface 346 of the adjacent resin frame do NOT urge the battery cell (battery cell 1 labeled above) toward the first side of the resin frame [of the resin frame assembly]. Instead, these entities mate below where battery cell 2 exists; not where battery cell 1 exists (i.e., the battery cell referenced in claim 13). Accordingly, the newly added feature violates the written description feature and the entities named are not capable of achieving the result obtained presented in the claim.
Moreover, any “configured to” language with a result obtained claimed is evaluated for how the feature is described in the written description and the corresponding structure that achieves said functionality. Given the language has no basis in the specification, it can be achieved by any configuration which is not supported.
Appropriate correction is required. Claim 13 will not have a prior art rejection because it is not clear how to configure such a construct to meet the result obtained that does not exist in the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/§ 103
8. The rejection of claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubota et al. (US 2016/0301051) is maintained. Claims 10-12 are also rejected under this heading. Thus:
Claims 1, 4 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubota et al. (US 2016/0301051).
Regarding claim 1, Kubota teaches a resin (P38, 70) frame assembly (10, 30A) (Fig. 9) (with Figs. 2-51, 8-9 used for description; not limited to entire disclosure) comprising:
a battery cell 10 (Figs. 2) which is held in a resin frame 30A (Figs. 8-9) (P38, 70), the battery cell 10 having a first (lower2) side and an opposite second side, the first (lower) side of the battery cell having a first surface (i.e., a lower surface2 based on the orientation of the figures in the reference which is non-limiting); and
the resin frame 30A having a first (lower) side and an opposite second side, the resin frame including (P36-54, 67-71; Figs. 8-9):
a positioning portion (annotated below, although it would the corresponding version thereof on the opposite, obstructed-from-view side) configured to position the first surface on the first side of the battery cell by abutting with the first surface of the battery cell 10;
a support portion (annotated below although it would the corresponding version on the opposite, obstructed-from-view side; alternative options described below) configured to support a second surface of the battery cell (i.e., upper surface 3a) on the second side of the battery cell 10;
an inclined surface 32d (of 32A) provided on the second side of the resin frame 30A and spaced apart from the support portion, the inclined surface 32d is inclined from a thickness direction (Lb) having a tilt angle of θ2 (Fig. 9); and
a protruding portion 32A provided on the second side of the resin frame 30A, the protruding portion projecting in the thickness direction of the battery cell (Lb) and including an inclined portion inclined obliquely from the thickness direction (Lb) with a title angle θ1 (Figs. 8-9),
wherein an angle θ1 at which the inclined portion 32A is inclined from the thickness direction Lb is larger than an angle θ2 at which the inclined surface 32d (of 32A) is inclined from the thickness direction Lb (Fig. 9) such that the inclined portion interferes with [an] inclined surface (see Fig. 9) of an adjacent resin frame 30A when multiple resin frames are compressed together (see Figs. 1, 8-9; P27-30; 67-71).
It is noted that Figure 8 shows tilt angles θ0 for the inclined members 32A, 32A and then describes that in Fig. 9, the inclined members 32A, 32A corresponding to the claimed inclined surface (32d of 32A) and protruding portion 32A as outlined above, are such that the angle θ1 is made larger than tilt angle θ0 with respect to the main body member, and the angle θ2 is made smaller than the tilt angle θ0 with respect to the main body member such that an urging force is applied to the other battery holder 30A so that the side surfaces thereof are tightly closed which improves airtightness (P67-71). Accordingly, given θ1 > θ0, and θ2 < θ0, then θ1 > θ2 given the transitive property of inequality, a foundational mathematical relationship. As one non-limiting example, if θ0 is 70°, and θ1 is larger than θ0 (e.g., θ1 = 75°) (P71), and θ2 is smaller than θ0 (e.g., θ2 = 65°), then θ1 (=75°) > θ2 (=65°).
Fig. 9 of Kuboata is annotated below in one non-limiting example of the option(s) for the claimed positioning portion and support portion (the respective version being those on the opposite, obstructed-from-view side) as defined in the claim given these components do not have reference numerals.
PNG
media_image3.png
656
554
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is noted that the claimed “support portion” could alternatively be any of:
one or both of the other two members 32A (there are four, so it would be the two remaining) configured to support a second surface (upper surface 3a) on the second side of the battery cell (40);
either side wall of frame member 30A configured to support a second surface 2b on the second side of the battery cell;
main body member 31 configured to support a second surface (wide surface 2a) on the second side of the battery cell; or
lower surface 32b of either or both of 32A, 32A configured to support and abut on the upper surface 3a (“the second surface”) of the battery cell on the second side (upper side) of the battery cell (P40).
Regarding claim 4, Kubota teaches wherein the inclined portion is inclined toward a distal end (i.e., free end 32c – P40) of the protruding portion (32A) (Fig. 9; P67-71).
Regarding claim 10, Kubota teaches wherein the inclined surface 32d (of 32A) [of the resin frame assembly] is inclined toward the first side (e.g. lower side) of the resin frame [of the resin frame assembly]. Specifically, the inclined surface 32d is a 2-D plane that extends in a height direction measured from the top surface of 32A toward the bottom of inclined surface 32d toward the first side (lower side) of the resin frame (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 11, Kubota teaches wherein the inclined portion 32A is inclined away from first side (e.g. lower side) of the resin frame [of the resin frame assembly]. Specifically, the inclined portion 32A has a height dimension measured from bottom of the plane defined by surface 32d to the top surface thereof such that the inclined portion 32A can be said to be inclined away from the first side (lower side) of the resin frame (Fig. 9) in this manner.
Regarding claim 12, Kubota teaches wherein the support portion [selecting the option of the lower surface 32b of either or both of 32A, 32A configured to support and abut on the upper surface 3a (“the second surface”) of the battery cell on the second side (upper side) of the battery cell (P40)] is between the battery cell and the inclined surface 32d in a direction perpendicular to the thickness direction Lb (Fig. 9; P40).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/14/2025 with respect to the prior Office Action rejection of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. All comments below are respectfully submitted.
Applicant argues:
In the rejection of independent claim 1, the Office Action equates a surface forming a tilt angle θ1 and a surface forming a tilt angle θ2 as disclosing the claimed angle at which the inclined portion is inclined from the thickness direction is larger than an angle at which the inclined surface is inclined from the thickness direction such that the inclined portion interferes with the inclined surface of an adjacent resin frame when multiple resin frames are compressed together.
However, as shown in FIG. 9 of Kubota, the surfaces forming the tilt angle θ1 and the surface forming the tilt angle θ2 both extend from the main body member 31 of the left battery holder 30A generally to the right and toward an adjacent right battery holder 30A. Likewise, equivalent surface surfaces on the adjacent (right) battery holder 30A would extend from a main body member 31 of the left battery holder 30A generally to the right and away from the left battery holder 30A. Because the surfaces forming the tilt angle θ1 and the surface forming the tilt angle θ2 all extend from their respective main body member 31 generally to the right are not in contact with each other, such surfaces cannot teach, or even suggest, an angle at which the inclined portion is inclined from the thickness direction is larger than an angle at which the inclined surface is inclined from the thickness direction and the inclined portion of the protruding portion interferes with the inclined surface of a resin frame adjacent to the protruding portion in the thickness direction as recited by independent claim 1. The rejection of independent claim 1 should be withdrawn for at least this reason.
In response: The Examiner is respectfully not clear how or why the following argument of:
“Because the surfaces forming the tilt angle θ1 and the surface forming the tilt angle θ2 all extend from their respective main body member 31 generally to the right are not in contact with each other, such surfaces cannot teach, or even suggest, [the final four lines of the claim]”
lends itself to somehow not teaching the argued limitation. The claim has no limitations as to what the specific surfaces that the inclined portion or inclined surface are required to extend from, or that certain surfaces are required to contact with each other. The inclined surface 32d is taught as being “provided on the second side of the resin frame and spaced apart from the support portion.” This is met by Kubota (Fig. 9), with the resin frame 30A having a first (lower) side and an opposite second side (i.e. top side). The protrusion portion 32A is claimed as also being provided on the second side of the resin frame. This is also met by Kubota (Fig. 9). The inclined surface 32d is inclined from a thickness direction (Lb) having a tilt angle of θ2 (Fig. 9); and the protruding portion 32A projects in the thickness direction of the battery cell (Lb) and includes an inclined portion inclined obliquely from the thickness direction (Lb) with a title angle θ1 (Figs. 8-9). Kubota goes on to teach as outlined in the rejection of record:
“wherein an angle θ1 at which the inclined portion 32A is inclined from the thickness direction Lb is larger than an angle θ2 at which the inclined surface 32d (of 32A) is inclined from the thickness direction Lb (Fig. 9) such that the inclined portion interferes with [an] inclined surface (see Fig. 9) of an adjacent resin frame 30A when multiple resin frames are compressed together (see Figs. 1, 8-9; P27-30; 67-71).
It is noted that Figure 8 shows tilt angles θ0 for the inclined members 32A, 32A and then describes that in Fig. 9, the inclined members 32A, 32A corresponding to the claimed inclined surface (32d of 32A) and protruding portion 32A as outlined above, are such that the angle θ1 is made larger than tilt angle θ0 with respect to the main body member, and the angle θ2 is made smaller than the tilt angle θ0 with respect to the main body member such that an urging force is applied to the other battery holder 30A so that the side surfaces thereof are tightly closed which improves airtightness (P67-71). Accordingly, given θ1 > θ0, and θ2 < θ0, then θ1 > θ2 given the transitive property of inequality, a foundational mathematical relationship. As one non-limiting example, if θ0 is 70°, and θ1 is larger than θ0 (e.g., θ1 = 75°) (P71), and θ2 is smaller than θ0 (e.g., θ2 = 65°), then θ1 (=75°) > θ2 (=65°).
Accordingly, it is not clear what is absent from the prior art reference to Kubota relative to the claim language presented in view of the argument above.
Applicant argues:
Further, as discussed in paragraphs [0040] and [0041] and FIGS. 8 and 9 of the present application, the angle at which the inclined portion is inclined from the thickness direction is larger than the angle at which the inclined surface is inclined from the thickness direction when the claimed resin frame assembly is not compressed with an adjacent frame assembly (emphasis mine).
In contrast, Kubota discloses a battery holder 30A with upper members 32A that both have a tilt angle 00 when the battery holder 30A is not assembled with another battery holder 30A. See Kubota [0071] and FIG. 8. In words, Kubota discloses that the upper members 32A have a same angle. As such, the upper members 32A of Kubota fail to disclose an angle at which the inclined portion is inclined from the thickness direction is larger than an angle at which the inclined surface is inclined from the thickness direction as recited by claim 1. The rejection of independent claim 1 should be withdrawn for at least this reason.
In response: The emphasized portion is not commensurate in scope with the claim; the claim says nothing of the angle comparison feature being present when the resin frame assembly is not compressed with an adjacent frame assembly, and instead, claims the feature relative to “when multiple resin frames are compressed together” (final two lines of the claim). Accordingly, the argument is not persuasive.
Moreover, arguendo, even if such a feature was amended into the claim, it is not considered a path toward allowability. Kubota desires that the inclined members 32A, 32A corresponding to the claimed inclined surface (32d of 32A) and protruding portion 32A as outlined in the rejection above are such that the angle θ1 is made larger than tilt angle θ0 with respect to the main body member, and the angle θ2 is made smaller than the tilt angle θ0 with respect to the main body member such that an urging force is applied to the other battery holder 30A so that the side surfaces thereof are tightly closed which improves airtightness (P67-71).
Accordingly, providing the inclined members 32A, 32A corresponding to the claimed inclined surface (32d of 32A) and protruding portion 32A with the θ1 angle θ2 angle initially (i.e., in the non-compressed state – Fig. 8) versus initial θ0 angles that transform into the θ1 angle θ2 angles when multiple resin frames are compressed together (Fig. 9 state) would be an obvious matter of design choice to ensure that the desired effect is achieved, namely, that an urging force is achieved such that the side surfaces thereof are tightly closed which improves airtightness (P67-71).
Lastly, as previously noted, the following non-prior art reference to Ichisawa (US 2025/0174805) (common assignee, no common inventors) will continue to be monitored for double patenting purposes which is not present at the current time.
Conclusion
10. The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is repeated below:
Yanai et al. (US 2021/0184189); Jansen et al. (US 2021/0280926); Nishimura (US 2017/0012267); Okada et al. (US 2021/0288363); Okada et al. (US 2018/0019454); and Tsuruta et al. (US 2014/0302378).
The following is repeated from the prior Office Action, and is presently updated. It is noted that there are no requirements of the shape of the resin frame and/or battery within the claim, wherein cell holders/frames holding cylindrical batteries could also be applicable. For compact prosecution purposes, the best prior art found has been applied that holds prismatic or square batteries; however, once the field of this format of frames is exhausted in terms of being applicable to that which is claimed, other formats of batteries and/or frames will be searched. For example, see Bae et al. (US 2013/0202934) – Fig. 1 reproduced below in which cell holder 42 holds a cylindrical battery cell having at least some of the structure claimed.
PNG
media_image4.png
418
593
media_image4.png
Greyscale
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/AMANDA J BARROW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 Figs. 8-9 show a modification of the first embodiment taught at Figs. 2-5 with the non-modified portions taught as being described and shown in the first embodiment (P69). Accordingly, the description for the non-modified portion is found in the description of the first embodiment, but is applicable to the Figs. 8-9 embodiment (P69).
2 The designation of “lower” or “upper” is based on the orientation shown in the figures, wherein it is noted that the orientation shown in the figures is not limiting and is used for ease of reference and explanation as is explicitly taught by Kubota (P26) and consistent with how the state of the prior art designates such terms.
Prosecution Insights