DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. Applicant's submission filed on 3/2/2026 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
2. 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 pertaining to the elected invention presently include 1,4, and 10-16. Claims 5, 9, 17 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 Analysis
It is noted that Applicant has removed the limitation of, “…wherein 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” from claim 1 (moved to newly added claim 16). Accordingly, at least claim 1 appears to read on at least Figs. 1-11.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the frame resin frame assembly” should remove the first “frame” (i.e., “the.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 4 and 10-13; claim 10, and thus dependent claims 11 and 12; and claim 12, 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention are withdrawn in view of the corrections filed.
The rejections of claims 10, and thus dependent claims 11 and 12; claim 11; claim 12; and claim 13under 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112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement are withdrawn in view of the corrections filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The rejection of 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 (US 2016/0301051) is withdrawn in view of the amendments filed.
In any interpretation of Kubota, Kubota does not meet the limitation of a protruding portion that applies a force toward the first side of the resin frame to an adjacent battery cell held by an adjacent resin frame when the resin frame and the adjacent resin frame are compressed together as recited (in conjunction with the other limitations presented). The previously relied upon members 32A are not capable of meeting this limitation as they do not apply such a force to an adjacent battery cell held by an adjacent resin frame; the interference of these members 32A with one another would not apply said force. While the limitation is a functional limitation, it is evaluated for the implicit or explicit requirements lent to the protruding portion consistent with MPEP 2173.05(g).
Claims 1, 4, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurita (US 2012/0315508)1.
Regarding claim 1, Kurita teaches a resin (P21) holder 12 assembly (“resin frame assembly”) (Fig. 2, 7, 9; not limited to entire disclosure) comprising:
a battery cell 11 which is held in a resin holder 12 (“resin frame”) (P21; Fig. 2), the battery cell 11 having a first side (i.e., upper side) and an opposite second side (i.e., lower side) spaced from the first side in a height direction (Fig. 2; P22), the first side of the battery cell having a first surface 11c; and
the resin frame 12 having a first side (i.e., upper side) and an opposite second side (i.e., lower side) spaced from the first side of the resin frame in the height direction (P21; Fig. 2), the resin frame 11 including (P24-30; Figs. 2-5; 7, 9):
an engagement portion 12b (“positioning portion”) configured to position the first surface 11c on the first side of the battery cell 11 by abutting with the first surface 11c of the battery cell 11 (Figs. 2, 5; P30);
a movement regulating section 12m (“a support portion”) configured to support a second surface 11d of the battery cell on the second side of the battery cell 11 (2, 3-D, 9; P30);
“an inclined surface” (any of: the upper surface of upper load transmission section 12g; the lower surface of upper load transmission section 12g; or either of just the tip portions thereof of these surfaces) provided on the second side of the resin frame 12 and spaced apart from the movement regulating section 12m (“support portion”) (Fig. 2), the inclined surface extending from a main body portion 12a of the resin frame 12 in a direction that is inclined obliquely from both a thickness direction of the battery cell 11 and the height direction (P22; Fig. 2, 7); and
a lower load transmission portion 12h (“a protruding portion”) provided on the second side of the resin frame 12, the lower load transmission portion 12h (“a protruding portion”) projecting in the thickness direction of the battery cell 11 and including an inclined portion (annotated below) that extends from the main body portion 12a of the resin frame 12 in a direction that is inclined obliquely from both the thickness direction and the height direction (Figs. 2, 7);
wherein the lower load transmission portion 12h (“protruding portion”) applies a force toward the first side of the resin frame 12 to an adjacent battery cell held by an adjacent resin frame 12 when multiple resin frames the resin frame and the adjacent resin frame are compressed together (P23, 27, 30, 37; specifically see leaf springs 20 that function in the compression of the resin frames 12 together such that the lower load transmission portion 12h is biased upward; Figs. 1, 5, 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
593
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In a first alternative interpretation, the bottom right side upper load transmission 12g is considered the protruding portion and the bottom left side 12g may be interpreted as the claimed support portion configured to support a second surface 11d of the battery cell 11 on the second side of the battery cell 11, wherein the inclined surface is spaced apart from the left side 12g (“the support portion”).
In a second alternative interpretation, the fourth engagement section 12f reads on the claimed support portion configured to support a second surface (either 11b or 11d) of the battery cell 11 on the second side of the battery cell 11, wherein the inclined surface is spaced apart from the fourth engagement section 12f (“support portion”).
The dependent claims will explicitly reference these alternative interpretations if/when utilized.
Regarding claim 4, Kurita teaches wherein the inclined portion of the resin frame assembly (annotated above in Fig. 7) is inclined toward a distal end of the lower load transmission portion 12h (“the protruding portion”).
Regarding claim 10, Kurita teaches wherein the inclined surface (selecting the entire lower surface of upper load transmission section 12g or just the tip lower surface thereof) is inclined upward toward the first side of the resin frame 12 as the inclined surface of the resin frame assembly is distanced from the main body portion 12a of the resin frame 12 (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Kurita teaches wherein the inclined portion of the resin frame assembly (annotated above) is inclined away from the first side of the resin frame 12 as the inclined portion of the resin frame assembly is distanced from the main body portion 12 of the resin frame 12 (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Kurita teaches wherein the support portion (upper plate of 12m – see Fig. 2, 9) is between2 the battery cell 11 and the inclined surface in the height direction (Fig. 7).
In the second alternative interpretation, the fourth engagement section 12f (“support portion”) is between2 the battery cell 11 and the inclined surface in the height direction (Figs. 2-3D, 7).
Regarding claim 13, Kurita teaches wherein interference between the inclined surface of the [[frame]] resin frame assembly (selecting the entire bottom surface of 12g) and an inclined portion of a second adjacent resin frame (same component annotated above but in a second adjacent resin frame) urges the battery cell 11 toward the first side of the resin frame 12 when the resin frame 12 and the second adjacent resin frame are compressed together (P23, 27, 30, 37; specifically see leaf springs 20 that function in the compression of the resin frames 12 together such that the lower load transmission portion 12h is biased upward; Figs. 1, 5, 7).
Regarding claim 14, Kurita teaches wherein the support portion (upper plate of 12m – see Fig. 2, 9) is between2 the battery cell 11 and the inclined surface in the height direction (Fig. 7), and the support portion (upper plate of 12m – see Fig. 2, 9) is lower than the battery cell 11 and higher than the protruding portion 12h in the height direction.
In the second alternative interpretation, the fourth engagement section 12f (“support portion”) is between2 the battery cell 11 and the inclined surface in the height direction (Figs. 2-3D, 7), and the fourth engagement section 12f (“support portion”) is lower than the battery cell 11 and higher than the protruding portion 12h in the height direction.
Regarding claim 15, Kurita teaches wherein the battery cell 11 has at least one of a positive terminal 11e or a negative terminal 11e at the first surface 11c (Fig. 2; P21).
Claims 1, 4, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okada et al. (US 2018/0019454)3.
Regarding claim 1, Okada teaches a resin frame assembly comprising:
a battery cell 1 which is held in a resin separator 2 (“frame”) (P40; Figs. 2-6; not limited to entire disclosure), the battery cell 1 having a first side (i.e., top side) and an opposite second side (i.e., bottom side) spaced from the first side in a height direction (i.e., up-down or vertical direction), the first side of the battery cell having a first surface 1b; and
the resin frame 2 having a first side (i.e., top side) and an opposite second side (i.e., bottom side) spaced from the first side of the resin frame in the height direction, the resin frame including:
a positioning portion (either 24B or 31) configured to position the first surface 1b on the first side of the battery cell 1 by abutting with the first surface of the battery cell (P43, 52, 54);
a protrusion 28 (“a support portion”) configured to support a second surface (i.e., bottom surface) of the battery cell on the second side of the battery cell;
a tapered surface 26 (“an inclined surface”) (either of 23A or 23B) provided on the second side of the resin frame 2 and spaced apart from the protrusion 28 (“support portion”), the inclined surface 26 extending from a main body portion 20 of the resin frame 2 in a direction that is inclined obliquely from both a thickness direction of the battery cell and the height direction (P13; Fig. 9); and
a protruding portion (the other of 23A or 23B) provided on the second side of the resin frame 2, the protruding portion projecting in the thickness direction of the battery cell and including a tapered portion 26 (“an inclined portion”) that extends from the main body portion 20 of the resin frame in a direction that is inclined obliquely from both the thickness direction and the height direction;
wherein the protruding portion (23B or 23A) applies a force toward the first side of the resin frame 1 to an adjacent battery cell held by an adjacent resin frame when multiple resin frames the resin frame and the adjacent resin frame are compressed together (see Fig. 9b; entire disclosure relied upon including all drawings and all descriptive portions).
Regarding claim 4, Okada teaches wherein the inclined portion 26 of the resin frame assembly is inclined toward a distal end of the protruding portion (Figs. 9a-9b).
Regarding claim 10, Okada teaches wherein the inclined surface 26 (of 23A) is inclined upward toward the first side of the resin frame as the inclined surface 26 (of 23A) of the resin frame assembly is distanced from the main body portion 20 of the resin frame 2 (Figs. 9a-9b).
Regarding claim 11, Okada teaches wherein the inclined portion (26 of 23B) of the resin frame assembly is inclined away from the first side of the resin frame as the inclined portion (26 of 23B) of the resin frame assembly is distanced from the main body portion 20 of the resin frame 2 (Figs. 9a-9b).
Regarding claim 12, Okada teaches wherein the protrusion 28 (“support portion”) is between (including an interpretation of intervening and stacked along the same vertical axis) the battery cell 1 and the inclined surface 26 (of 23A) in the height direction (see Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 13, Okada teaches wherein interference between the inclined surface of the [[frame]] resin frame assembly (23A or 23B) and an inclined portion of a second adjacent resin frame urges the battery cell toward the first side of the resin frame when the resin frame and the second adjacent resin frame are compressed together (see Figs. 3, 7; entire disclosure relied upon).
Regarding claim 14, Okada teaches wherein the protrusion 28 (“support portion”) is between (including an interpretation of intervening and stacked along the same vertical axis) the battery cell 1 and the inclined surface 26 (of 23A) in the height direction (see Figs. 4-5), and the protrusion 28 (“support portion”) is lower than the battery cell and higher than the protruding portion (23A or 23B) in the height direction (see Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 15, Okada teaches wherein the battery cell has at least one of a positive terminal 13 or a negative terminal 13 at the first surface (P38; Fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurita et al. (US 2012/0315508) as applied to at least claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, Kurita fails to teaches wherein 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. Kurita generally teaches there is an angle at
which the inclined portion (annotated above) is inclined from the thickness direction, and there is an angle at which the inclined surface is inclined from the thickness direction as annotated below4:
PNG
media_image2.png
273
507
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The court has held that absent objective evidence of criticality that creates a new or unexpected result commensurate in scope with the claim, the change in form or shape is held an obvious matter of engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). It is noted that the Examiner has reviewed the instant application for criticality, wherein given the claims fail to recite that the inclined portion (of one resin frame) and the inclined surface (of another resin frame) have any kind of direct interaction, it cannot be said that the angles relative to one another have any criticality that would be commensurate in scope with the claimed construct.
Therefore, it is held an additional obvious matter of design choice to alter the angle(s) of either or both of the inclined portion relative to the thickness direction and/or the inclined surface relative to the thickness direction such that the inclined portion angle is larger than that of the inclined surface as an obvious matter of engineering choice, the alteration being one of form/shape that would not alter the operational functionality of the device.
10. Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (US 2018/0019454) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Kubota et al. (US 2016/0301051).
Regarding claim 16, Okada fails to disclose wherein an angle at which the tapered surface 26 of inclined portion (23A or 23B) is inclined from the thickness direction is larger than an angle at which the inclined surface 26 (the other of 23B or 23A) is inclined from the thickness direction.
In the same field of endeavor of resin frame assembly constructs for holding a battery cell, Kubota teaches analogous angled members 32A of a resin frame 30 that abut against other angled members 32A of an adjacent frame 30 (Fig. 9), wherein Kubota teaches that the tilted angle may be manipulated such that the angled members 32A of adjacent resin frames are such that an urging force from one upper member 32A of a first resin frame is provided to another upper member 32A of an adjacent frame so that the surfaces thereof are tightly closed (P70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to determine the workable or optimum angles of the
tapered surface 26 of inclined portion (23A or 23B) and the inclined surface 26 (the other of 23B or 23A) relative to one another within the construct of Okada given Kubota teaches altering the titled angle of an analogous member 32A of a first resin frame 30 intended to abut member 32A of an adjacent frame resin is a known technique and provides the predictable result of allowing an urging force from one upper member 32A of a first resin frame to be provided to another upper member 32A of an adjacent frame so that the surfaces thereof are tightly closed (P70). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/2/2026 with respect to the prior Office Action rejections of record have been fully considered. With respect to the prior art rejection, Applicant’s argues the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
270
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because the Kubota can be interpreted as follows:
Kubota teaches a resin (P38, 70) frame assembly (10, 30A) (Fig. 9) (with Figs. 2-5[1], 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 (left[2]) side and an opposite (right) second side spaced apart in a direction (labeled “W” in Fig. 2- hereinafter “a height direction” with Kubota explicitly teaching the orientation and labeling of directional features is non-limiting – P26), the first (left) side of the battery cell having a first (side2) surface (2b') (“a first surface”); and
the resin frame 30A having a first (left) side and an opposite second side spaced from the first side of the resin frame 30A in the W direction (“the height direction”), the resin frame including (P36-54, 67-71; Figs. 8-9):
a positioning portion (the left side wall) configured to position the first surface 2b' on the first side of the battery cell by abutting with the first surface 2b 'of the battery cell 10;
a support portion (the right side wall) configured to support a second surface 2b of the battery cell 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 main body portion 31 of the resin frame 30A in a direction that is inclined obliquely from both a W3 direction (“ a thickness direction”) of the battery cell and the W direction (“the height direction) (Fig. 9); and
a protruding portion 32A provided on the second side of the resin frame 30A, the protruding portion projecting in the W3 direction (“the thickness direction”) of the battery cell and including an inclined portion that extends from the main body portion 31 that is inclined obliquely from both the thickness direction and the height direction…
For clarity of the record, it is noted that the rejection is withdrawn because Kubota fails to disclose the protruding portion 32A applies a force toward the first side of the resin frame to an adjacent battery cell held by an adjacent resin frame when the resin frame and the adjacent resin frame are compressed together as recited (in conjunction with the other limitations presented). The previously relied upon members 32A are not capable of meeting this limitation as they do not apply such a force to an adjacent battery cell held by an adjacent resin frame; the interference of these members 32A with one another would not apply said force in said direction to an adjacent battery cell. While the limitation is a functional limitation, it is evaluated for the implicit or explicit requirements lent to the protruding portion consistent with MPEP 2173.05(g).
Accordingly, the rejection using Kubota under anticipation is withdrawn; however, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art cited and applied above in view of the claim amendments filed.
The following prior art not relied upon also appears to fully anticipate at least claim 1:
Toshioka et al. (US 2016/0036105); and
Kim et al. (US 2011/0135985).
See also the following prior art previously made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure repeated below:
Yanai et al. (US 2021/0184189); Jansen et al. (US 2021/0280926); Nishimura (US 2017/0012267); Okada et al. (US 2021/0288363); and Tsuruta et al. (US 2014/0302378).
Conclusion
12. 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.
13. 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 This prior art reference was previously applied to the claims in the first Non-Final mailed 6/11/2025. Applicant deleted prior insertions amended into the claim during prosecution history such that this prior art reference now anticipates the subject matter of claim 1.
2 Applicant previously argued in the Interview held 1/26/2026 that the use of “between” to describe a first component relative to two other components does not require the first component to be intervening and stacked along a single axis with the other two components. Applicant argued that this interpretation provided support for proposed new claim 14 of the discussion-only claims. For example, proposed new claim 14 of 1/26/2026 recited “the support portion is between the battery cell and the protruding portion in the height direction.” Support portion 342 is not intervening and stacked between the battery cell and the protruding portion 350 that exists on the reverse side; however, Applicant argued that because the battery cell exists above the support portion 342, and the protruding portion 350 exists below the support portion 342, this allowed for the support portion 342 to be between the battery cell and the protruding portion in the height direction as claimed. Applicant’s argued interpretation for how “between” may be used is applied here.
3 Cited in the first Non-Final Office Action mailed 6/11/2025 as pertinent prior art (pages 14-15) and citation repeated in each Office Action.
4 Applicant provided this annotated figure for the interview held 8/5/2025 and states that, “Kurita disclosing a 12g and a 12h that have surfaces sloped at generally the same angle.”
[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 “left” or “right” or “side” 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