DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. Applicant’s response filed 10/24/2025 was received. 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.
Specification & Drawings
2. The objection to the specification is withdrawn. The amendments filed 10/24/2025 to the specification and drawings are accepted.
3. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required where new matter is not involved:
a first casing;
a second casing;
the second casing fixed to an outer wall of the first casing
an inner cover fixed to an inner wall of the first casing1
All of terminology above is entirely new and has no antecedent basis in the written description, or appropriate reference numerals designating the part(s) to which the term applies. Accordingly, both the specification and drawings are objected to for this reason (see MPEP 608.01(o)):
The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description. See MPEP § 2111.01 and § 2173.05(a).
Usually the terminology of the claims present on the filing date of the application follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims, including claims first presented after the application filing date where no claims were submitted on filing, and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01 and § 2103.
Appropriate correction is required.
4. The drawings are objected to because the do not include reference numerals designating the part or parts to which the new terminology above corresponds to (MPEP 608.01(o): the meaning of every time should be designated in the drawings). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
5. The objections to claims 7, 8, and 16 are withdrawn in view of the corrections filed.
6. Claim 1 is objected to for the following:
Claim 1 as amended is objected to for: “the first plurality of battery and” (line 9) should be corrected to “the first plurality of battery cells and…” for proper antecedent basis and grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The rejection of claim 2, and thus dependent claims 11-18, 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.
8. Claim 19 and claim 25 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) Newly added claim 19 recites in part, “the control circuit board is located entirely to a first side of a plane parallel to the longitudinal axes…”
It is not clear how to orient the control circuit board to a first side; it appears this can be corrected by way of amending “to” to “on” which is the amendment provided to the specification, and also the manner in which the plurality of battery cells are described relative to the second side of the plane.
Claim 25 has the same issue.
B) Claim 19 does not make clear whether the plane is a structural entity or a virtual plane. Correction can be made by amending “a plane” to a “a virtual plane..” wherever it appears in the claim.
Claim 25 has the same issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
9. 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.
10. Claim 23, and thus dependent claims 24-26, 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.
Newly added claim 23 is provided that involves claiming of “an inner wall of the first casing...” Applicant does not point out the support for the claimed inner wall (no antecedent basis for the terminology) as being part of the first casing (identified as the front side casing 22 in the remarks filed 10/24/2025), nor do the drawings illustrate the inner wall is part of the first casing 22.
While Fig. 4 illustrates there is “an inner wall” within front side casing 22; it is never discloses as being part of or integral with the first casing such that it is “an inner wall of the first casing.” In prior art cited in the most recent IDS to the same assignee as the instant application, Kazumasa (JP 2016-018605) teaches and illustrates an analogous construct in which there is outer case main body 35 (“a first casing”), an outer case lid 31 (“a second casing”) and an inner case 40 defining an inner wall that is separate and distinct from the outer case main body 35 (“a first casing”) (see Figs. 3-6; copy provided by Applicant with machine translation; Figs. 5 & 6 of Kazumasa reproduced below):
PNG
media_image1.png
499
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the inner wall illustrated in Fig. 4 of the instant application might have this construct; it also might be integral with and part of the first casing; however, given the written description is entirely silent on the structural configuration thereof, there is no support to claim it either way.
Accordingly, defining and claiming of “an inner wall of the first casing” and the subsequently structural requirements violates the written description. Specifically, there is also not a written description or support for:
“the first casing and the inner cover defining a sealed chamber having a volume smaller than a volume defined by the first casing and the second casing.”
Applicant provides the following support analysis for the new terminology and language presented:
PNG
media_image2.png
31
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
223
643
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Adding the reference numerals identified:
“the first casing 22 and the inner cover 26 defining a sealed chamber 30 having a volume smaller than a volume defined by the first casing 22 and the second casing 26.”
Again, the written description never identifies the inner wall illustrated as being part of the first casing 22; accordingly, claiming that the first casing 22 and the inner cover 26 define a sealed chamber 30 does not appear to be supported by the written description or drawings. The lack of support extends to the inner wall of the first casing being located in the location claimed (final three lines of the claim).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US 2018/0248157) is withdrawn in view of the amendments provided.
All rejections pending from this are also withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. Claims 1-8, 10-13, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (WO 2019/208219) (using US 2021/0159553 family member as a translation and copy thereof) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0248157) and Haino et al. (WO 2019/021881) (using EP 3,660,945 family member as a translation and copy thereof).
Regarding claim 1, Kurihara teaches a battery apparatus (Figs. 1-8; entire disclosure relied upon) configured to supply electric power to an electric work machine (P32), comprising:
a first plurality of battery cells 1 each having a first end spaced from a second end along a longitudinal axis (P30; Figs. 3, 4, 7);
an exterior case 9 (“casing”), which houses the first plurality of battery cells 1 (P31-34; Figs. 1-3);
a battery holder 2 in the casing holding the first plurality of battery cells 1 (P30, 41-45; Figs. 3-4, 6-7);
a control circuit board 4 mounted on the first cell holder 4 (P43) in the casing 9 and disposed parallel to the longitudinal axes (P50-52; Fig. 3); and
a plurality of circuit board elements on a side of the control circuit board opposite the first cell holder 4 (illustrated – see Fig. 3)
Kurihara teaches the use of insulating plate 11 (“a first body”) (P35-36) made of a material having excellent insulating and heat insulating properties such as a mica plate that is plate-shaped and is disposed opposing first ends of the plurality of battery cells 1, and is located within casing 9 (P35-36; Fig. 3). Kurihara fails to disclose that insulating plate 11 (“first body”) comprises at least one fire-extinguishing agent that provides a negative-catalyst effect with respect to combustion.
In the same field of endeavor, Suzuki teaches an analogous art of a battery apparatus comprising a protective cover 24 provided in the same location (i.e., opposing the terminals 21P of the plurality of battery cells 21), and that it is a known technique to provide said protective cover 24 with a heat resistance material as well as a fire extinguishing material such as hydrate that can extinguish fire with the use of water vapor during fire (“at least one fire-extinguishing agent that provides a negative catalyst effect with respect to combustion”) (P86).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the insulating plate 11 (“first body”) of Kurihara with at least one fire extinguishing material such as hydrate that can extinguish fire with the use of water vapor during fire (“at least one fire-extinguishing agent that provides a negative catalyst effect with respect to combustion”) given the technique and analogous construct are taught by Suzuki (P62-65, 86-87), in order to provide the predictable and advantageous result of providing the insulating plate 11 with a fire extinguishing ability (P86) (i.e., “a fire fire-extinguishing body”).
Kurihara further fails to disclose a second fire-extinguishing body that comprises at least one fire-extinguishing agent that provides a negative-catalyst effect with respect to combustion that exists within casing 9 and is disposed between the control circuit board 4 and the first cell holder 2.
In the same field of endeavor, Haino teaches analogous art of a power supply device including a plurality of batteries 1 with analogous battery cell holder 2, a circuit board 4 having a plurality of circuit board elements on a side opposite the cell holder 2, the circuit board 4 also mounted on the cell holder 2 (Figs. 1-4; abstract; P 18-36), wherein it is a known technique to provide a heat blocking layer 6 having a layered structured and including molten layer 7 that includes a material provide a negative-catalyst effect with respect to combustion (P28), the construct allowing the elements on the opposite side of the circuit board from not being damaged by high-temperature exhaust gas from the battery block to ensure a high level of safety (abstract; P7; entire disclosure relied upon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the battery apparatus of Kurihara with the heat blocking layer 6 in the same location (i.e., intervening between the bottom of the circuit board 4 and the top of the cell holder 2) such that it exists within the casing 9 and has a molten layer 7 that includes a material provide a negative-catalyst effect with respect to combustion (P28) (i.e., “a second fire-extinguishing body”) given the technique and construct are taught by Haino and provide the predictable and advantageous result of preventing the elements on the opposite side of the circuit board from not being damaged by high-temperature exhaust gas from the battery block to ensure a high level of safety (abstract; entire disclosure relied upon).
With respect to the above combination of references, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1379, 2020 USPQ2d 10706 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Regarding claim 2, Kurihara does not explicitly teach wherein a state of charge of the first plurality of battery cells 1 is 90% or more. The entire purpose of a battery, as would be immediately understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is to provide energy, or power, to a given device, wherein charging the cells to their full state of charge or close thereto in order that the battery cells are operational for their intended purpose of discharging to provide energy to the device would be a routine endeavor for one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide the predictable result of providing a battery cell (or battery module/pack) that is capable of meeting the energy/power requirements of the tool/device it is intended to power.
Regarding claim 3, Kurihara fails to explicitly teach wherein the each of the first plurality of battery cells has an energy density of 300 Wh/liter or more. The feature claimed is drawn to the volumetric energy density, or the amount of energy that can be stored within a given volume. The entire purpose of a battery, as would be immediately understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is to provide energy, or power, to a given device, wherein optimizing the amount of energy/power (i.e., the purpose of the device) would be a routine endeavor for one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide the predictable results of providing a battery cell (or battery module/pack) that is capable of meeting the energy/power requirements of the tool/device it is intended to power.
Regarding claim 4, Kurihara as modified by Haino teaches heat blocking layer 6 includes an insulating layer 8 (“a protective member”) which covers at least a portion of the second fire-extinguishing body (P29) (alternatively; substrate 9 reads on the claimed protective member as well as taught by Haino) (P29-33).
Regarding claim 5, Kurihara teaches wherein the first plurality of battery cells comprises four cylindrical-shaped battery cells. Thus, Kurihara does not explicitly teach five or more cylindrical-shaped battery cells; however, the addition of more cells to meet voltage and/or current requirements is well within the ambit of one having ordinary skill in the art, with both Suzuki and Haino teaching each battery holder having a first plurality of cells, the first plurality of cells numbering greater than five.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the construct of Kurihara with any number of cells to meet required voltage and/or current requirements of the battery apparatus as would be immediately known to one skilled in the art, with both Suzuki and Haino teaching it is a known technique and construct to provide a battery holder having a first plurality of cells, the first plurality of cells numbering greater than five (Suzuki: Fig 3; Haino: Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 6, Kurihara teaches wherein:
the casing 9 has a chamber (best shown in Fig. 2), which houses the first plurality of battery cells 1, the insulating plate 11 modified to have the at least one fire-extinguishing agent of Suzuki (“the first fire-extinguishing body”) and the heat blocking layer 6 (“the second fire-extinguishing body”) (Kurihara as modified by Haino) located between the circuit board 4 and the cell holder (see rejection of claim 1). Kurihara teaches the chamber is sealed by way of joint surface 8 (Fig. 2; P63).
Regarding claim 7, Kurihara teaches wherein the insulating plate 11 modified to have the at least one fire-extinguishing agent of Suzuki (“the first fire-extinguishing body”) is located opposing terminals of the first plurality of battery cells (Fig. 3, 7, and 8; Figs. 6-8).
Regarding claim 8, Kurihara teaches wherein the insulating plate 11 modified to have the at least one fire-extinguishing agent of Suzuki (“the first fire-extinguishing body”) is disposed opposing positive terminals of the first plurality of battery cells (i.e., at least two positive terminals – see Figs. 6-8; P46-49).
In the interest of compact prosecution, it is noted that configuring the plurality of batteries such that all terminals face a given direction to achieve a desired electrical configuration would be an immediately obvious expedient to one skilled in the art, the configuration taught by Suzuki (Fig. 3 has all positive terminals 21P facing protective cover 24).
Regarding claim 10, Kurihara teaches wherein the first plurality of battery cells comprises lithium-ion battery cells (P34).
Regarding claim 11, Kurihara fails to explicitly teach wherein the each of the first plurality of battery cells has an energy density of 300 Wh/liter or more. The feature claimed is drawn to the volumetric energy density, or the amount of energy that can be stored within a given volume. The entire purpose of a battery, as would be immediately understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is to provide energy, or power, to a given device, wherein optimizing the amount of energy/power (i.e., the purpose of the device) would be a routine endeavor for one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide the predictable results of providing a battery cell (or battery module/pack) that is capable of meeting the energy/power requirements of the tool/device it is intended to power.
Regarding claim 12, Kurihara as modified by Haino teaches heat blocking layer 6 includes an insulating layer 8 (“a protective member”) which covers at least a portion of the second fire-extinguishing body (P29) (alternatively; substrate 9 reads on the claimed protective member as well as taught by Haino) (P29-33).
Regarding claim 13, Kurihara teaches wherein the first plurality of battery cells comprises four cylindrical-shaped battery cells. Thus, Kurihara does not explicitly teach five or more cylindrical-shaped battery cells; however, the addition of more cells to meet voltage and/or current requirements is well within the ambit of one having ordinary skill in the art, with both Suzuki and Haino teaching each battery holder having a first plurality of cells, the first plurality of cells numbering greater than five.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the construct of Kurihara with any number of cells to meet required voltage and/or current requirements of the battery apparatus as would be immediately known to one skilled in the art, with both Suzuki and Haino teaching it is a known technique and construct to provide a battery holder having a first plurality of cells, the first plurality of cells numbering greater than five (Suzuki: Fig 3; Haino: Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 19, Kurihara teaches wherein the control circuit board 4 is located entirely [on] a first side of a [virtual] plane parallel to the longitudinal axes and each of the first plurality of battery cells 1 is located on a second side of the [virtual] plane (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Kurihara teaches the battery apparatus further including a second cell holder 2 in the casing holding a second plurality of battery cells (Fig. 3; see the separate battery blocks 10, 10).
Regarding claim 21, Kurihara teaches wherein: the insulating plate 11 modified to modified to have the at least one fire-extinguishing agent of Suzuki (“the first fire-extinguishing body”) is substantially rectangular (see Fig. 3 of Kurihara), and the heat blocking layer 6 (“the second fire-extinguishing body”) (Kurihara as modified by Haino) is plate-shaped and rectangular (Figs. 1-4).
The insulating plate 11 modified to modified to have the at least one fire-extinguishing agent of Suzuki (“the first fire-extinguishing body”) is substantially rectangular, although it has the corners missing such that it is not exactly rectangular. The courts have held that absent persuasive evidence that a particular claimed configuration is significant, the change in form, shape, or design of a claimed configuration is held a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill would have found obvious (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the the insulating plate 11 modified to modified to have the at least one fire-extinguishing agent of Suzuki (“the first fire-extinguishing body”) such that it is exactly rectangular (no corners missing) versus generally rectangular as an obvious matter of design choice.
13. Claims 2 and 11-13 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (WO 2019/208219) (using US 2021/0159553 family member as a translation and copy thereof) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0248157) and Haino et al. (WO 2019/021881) (using EP 3,660,945 family member as a translation and copy thereof) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Tabatowski-Bush et al. (US 2020/0011934).
Regarding claim 2, Kurihara does not explicitly teach wherein a state of charge of the first plurality of battery cells 1 is 90% or more. Tabatowski-Bush teaches analogous art of a battery apparatus and that the desire is for each cell to be at 100% SOC at the end of a charge cycle is so that the device (vehicle in this case) will have the maximum range while not jeopardizing the cell (P27), wherein as would be recognized to one having ordinary skill in the art, regardless of what the battery apparatus is selected to power (i.e., vehicle, power tool, cell phone, etc.), the desire of the user would be that the battery/batteries are capable of discharging for the longest duration of time to have the longest use period which would be predicated on the amount of initial charge or SOC percentage (P27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the first plurality of battery cells with a state of charge to 100% SOC, a value anticipating the range claimed of “90% or more,” in order to provide the known, predictable result of allowing for the battery/batteries to have the most range or usefulness to the user while not jeopardizing the cell safety as taught by Tabatowski-Bush (P27).
Regarding claim 11, Kurihara fails to explicitly teach wherein the each of the first plurality of battery cells has an energy density of 300 Wh/liter or more. The feature claimed is drawn to the volumetric energy density, or the amount of energy that can be stored within a given volume. The entire purpose of a battery, as would be immediately understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is to provide energy, or power, to a given device, wherein optimizing the amount of energy/power (i.e., the purpose of the device) would be a routine endeavor for one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide the predictable results of providing a battery cell (or battery module/pack) that is capable of meeting the energy/power requirements of the tool/device it is intended to power.
Regarding claim 12, Kurihara as modified by Haino teaches heat blocking layer 6 includes an insulating layer 8 (“a protective member”) which covers at least a portion of the second fire-extinguishing body (P29) (alternatively; substrate 9 reads on the claimed protective member as well as taught by Haino) (P29-33).
Regarding claim 13, Kurihara teaches wherein the first plurality of battery cells comprises four cylindrical-shaped battery cells. Thus, Kurihara does not explicitly teach five or more cylindrical-shaped battery cells; however, the addition of more cells to meet voltage and/or current requirements is well within the ambit of one having ordinary skill in the art, with both Suzuki and Haino teaching each battery holder having a first plurality of cells, the first plurality of cells numbering greater than five.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the construct of Kurihara with any number of cells to meet required voltage and/or current requirements of the battery apparatus as would be immediately known to one skilled in the art, with both Suzuki and Haino teaching it is a known technique and construct to provide a battery holder having a first plurality of cells, the first plurality of cells numbering greater than five (Suzuki: Fig 3; Haino: Figs. 1-3).
14. Claims 3 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (WO 2019/208219) (using US 2021/0159553 family member as a translation and copy thereof) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0248157) and Haino et al. (WO 2019/021881) (using EP 3,660,945 family member as a translation and copy thereof) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaben et al. (US 2014/0308576).
Regarding claim 3, Kazuhira fails to explicitly teach wherein the energy density of the one or more battery cell(s) (each) has an energy density of 300 Wh/liter or more. The feature claimed is drawn to the volumetric energy density, or the amount of energy that can be stored within a given volume. The entire purpose of a battery, as would be immediately understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is to provide energy, or power, to a given device, wherein optimizing the amount of energy/power (i.e., the purpose of the device) would be a routine endeavor for one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide the predictable results of providing a battery cell (or battery module/pack) that is capable of meeting the energy/power requirements of the tool/device it is intended to power.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Gaben teaches analogous art of a battery and that its energy density is preferably more than 500 Wh/liter (P68). Accordingly, Gaben demonstrates the optimization of the parameter is known in the state of the prior art, and provide a range overlapping with the claimed range of 300 Wh/liter such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the range itself (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the one or more battery cells with a given volumetric energy density in order to meet the demands of the tool/device it is intended to power, Gaben teaching the parameter is a known parameter to optimize and teaches a range overlapping with the claimed range (P68) such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the range itself (see MPEP § 2144.05).
15. Claims 11-13 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (WO 2019/208219) (using US 2021/0159553 family member as a translation and copy thereof) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0248157), Haino et al. (WO 2019/021881) (using EP 3,660,945 family member as a translation and copy thereof), and Tabatowski-Bush et al. (US 2020/0011934) as applied to at least claim 2 above, and further in view of Gaben et al. (US 2014/0308576).
Regarding claim 11, Kazuhira fails to explicitly teach wherein the energy density of the one or more battery cell(s) (each) has an energy density of 300 Wh/liter or more. The feature claimed is drawn to the volumetric energy density, or the amount of energy that can be stored within a given volume. The entire purpose of a battery, as would be immediately understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is to provide energy, or power, to a given device, wherein optimizing the amount of energy/power (i.e., the purpose of the device) would be a routine endeavor for one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide the predictable results of providing a battery cell (or battery module/pack) that is capable of meeting the energy/power requirements of the tool/device it is intended to power.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Gaben teaches analogous art of a battery and that its energy density is preferably more than 500 Wh/liter (P68). Accordingly, Gaben demonstrates the optimization of the parameter is known in the state of the prior art, and provide a range overlapping with the claimed range of 300 Wh/liter such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the range itself (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the one or more battery cells with a given volumetric energy density in order to meet the demands of the tool/device it is intended to power, Gaben teaching the parameter is a known parameter to optimize and teaches a range overlapping with the claimed range (P68) such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the range itself (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 12, Kurihara as modified by Haino teaches heat blocking layer 6 includes an insulating layer 8 (“a protective member”) which covers at least a portion of the second fire-extinguishing body (P29) (alternatively; substrate 9 reads on the claimed protective member as well as taught by Haino) (P29-33).
Regarding claim 13, Kurihara teaches wherein the first plurality of battery cells comprises four cylindrical-shaped battery cells. Thus, Kurihara does not explicitly teach five or more cylindrical-shaped battery cells; however, the addition of more cells to meet voltage and/or current requirements is well within the ambit of one having ordinary skill in the art, with both Suzuki and Haino teaching each battery holder having a first plurality of cells, the first plurality of cells numbering greater than five.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the construct of Kurihara with any number of cells to meet required voltage and/or current requirements of the battery apparatus as would be immediately known to one skilled in the art, with both Suzuki and Haino teaching it is a known technique and construct to provide a battery holder having a first plurality of cells, the first plurality of cells numbering greater than five (Suzuki: Fig 3; Haino: Figs. 1-3).
16. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (WO 2019/208219) (using US 2021/0159553 family member as a translation and copy thereof) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0248157) and Haino et al. (WO 2019/021881) (using EP 3,660,945 family member as a translation and copy thereof) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in of Oshiba et al. (US 2014/0370363).
Regarding claim 22, Kurihara fails to disclose the battery apparatus further including a first slot in the casing facing a second slot in the casing 9, wherein a first end of the insulating plate 11 modified to modified to have the at least one fire-extinguishing agent of Suzuki (“the first fire-extinguishing body”) is mounted in the first slot and a second end thereof is mounted in the second slot as claimed.
The claimed feature is drawn to a construct of how to hold/maintain the modified insulating plate 11 within the casing 9 of Kurihara. In the same field of endeavor, Oshiba teaches analogous art of an energy storage apparatus in which it is a known technique to provide a first groove 133a (“first slot’) in support portion 133 in the case main body 100 facing a second groove 133a (“second slot”) in support portions 133 in the case main body 100, with an analogous partition plate 140 having heat insulating properties (P73) inserted therein such that a first end of the partition plate 140 is mounted in the first groove 133a (“first slot”) and a second end of the partition plate 140 is mounted in the second groove 133a (“second slot”) (see Figs. 1-3, 6-7, 8-9; P55-116). Truncated Fig. 3 and Fig. 9 of Oshiba are reproduced below for convenience:
PNG
media_image4.png
259
292
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
795
420
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the case 9 of Kurihara with first and second grooves 133a (“first and second slots”) on opposite ends thereof with modified insulation plate 11 (“first fire-extinguishing body”) having first and second ends mounted respectively in the first and second grooves 133a (“first and second slots”) given the technique and construct are taught by Oshiba and provide the predictable result of a manner in which to stably mount the modified insulation plate 11 (“first fire-extinguishing body”) that provides for a detachable arrangement such that it can be removed as needed (P116).
17. Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (WO 2019/208219) (using US 2021/0159553 family member as a translation and copy thereof) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0248157) and Kazumasa (JP 2016-018605) (machine translation provided by Applicant in the IDS filed 8/15/2025).
Regarding claim 23, Kurihara teaches a battery apparatus (Figs. 1-8; entire disclosure relied upon) configured to supply electric power to an electric work machine (P32), comprising:
a plurality of battery cells 1 each having a first end spaced from a second end along a longitudinal axis (P30; Figs. 3, 4, 7); and
an exterior case 9 (“a casing”), which houses the first plurality of battery cells 1 (P31-34; Figs. 1-3); the exterior casing 9 comprises a first casing 9B, a second casing 9A fixed to an outer wall of the first casing (at joint 8- see Fig. 2).
Kurihara teaches the use of insulating plate 11 (“a first body”) (P35-36) made of a material having excellent insulating and heat insulating properties such as a mica plate that is plate-shaped and is disposed opposing first ends of the battery cells 1 (P35-36; Fig. 3). Kurihara fails to disclose that insulating plate 11 (“first body”) comprises at least one fire-extinguishing agent that provides a negative-catalyst effect with respect to combustion.
In the same field of endeavor, Suzuki teaches an analogous art of a battery apparatus comprising a protective cover 24 provided in the same location (i.e., opposing the terminals 21P of the plurality of battery cells 21), and that it is a known technique to provide said protective cover 24 with a heat resistance material as well as a fire extinguishing material such as hydrate that can extinguish fire with the use of water vapor during fire (“at least one fire-extinguishing agent that provides a negative catalyst effect with respect to combustion”) (P86).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the insulating plate 11 (“first body”) of Kurihara with at least one fire extinguishing material such as hydrate that can extinguish fire with the use of water vapor during fire (“at least one fire-extinguishing agent that provides a negative catalyst effect with respect to combustion”) given the technique and analogous construct are taught by Suzuki (P62-65, 86-87), in order to provide the predictable and advantageous result of providing the insulating plate 11 with a fire extinguishing ability (P86) (i.e., “a fire fire-extinguishing body”).
Kurihara fails to teach an inner cover fixed to an inner wall of the first casing 9B, the first casing 9B and the inner cover defining a sealed chamber having a volume smaller than a volume defined by the first casing 9B and the second casing 9A, the plurality of battery cells 1 and the modified insulating plate 11 (“fire-extinguishing body”) disposed in the chamber, the chamber is sealed by a sealing member, and the inner wall of the first casing is located between the modified insulating plate 11 (“fire-extinguishing body”) and the outer wall of the first casing, the inner wall of the first casing being spaced from the outer wall of the first casing.
In the same field of endeavor, Kazumasa teaches and illustrates an analogous battery apparatus 20 (P17) in which it is a known technique to provide an outer case main body 35 (“a first casing” as claimed; analogous to first casing 9B of Kurihara) (P21-22), an outer case lid 31 (“a second casing” as claimed; analogous to second casing 9A of Kurihara) fixed to an outer wall of the outer case main body 35 ( first casing”) (P21-22), and an inner case lid 41 (“inner cover”) fixed to an inner wall (part of inner case 40) (P27), the outer case main body 35 (“first casing”) and the inner case lid 41 (“inner cover”) defining a sealed chamber having a volume smaller than a volume defined by the outer case main body 35 (“first casing”) and the outer case lid 31 (“second casing”) (Figs. 5-6, 12-13), the analogous battery cells and all constituents thereof (circuit board 60, holder 54 (P37-46), etc.) disposed in the chamber (P30; Figs. 5-6, 12-13), the chamber is sealed by a sealing member (i.e., ridges 41 of the inner case 41 engage with grooves 45 of the inner case main body 45 to provide a waterproof inner case – P27-29). Additionally, a ring-shaped sealing member to achieve waterproofing is taught in the context of other mating surfaces (P34) such that the use of this additional sealing member (i.e., in addition to the ridges 41 and grooves 45) would be prima facie obvious. Kazumasa teaches that by providing an inner case within an outer case construct (P27), the electrical components are less likely to get wet with rainwater or the like (P5) and an inner waterproof case may be achieved (P27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the singular case 9/9A/9B of Kurihara with the taught construct detailed above by Kazumasa in which a waterproof inner case is provided within an outer case construct (P27) in order to provide the predictable results of preventing the electrical components from getting wet with rainwater or the like (P5) by way of the inner waterproof case (P27).
Kazumasa does not teach that the inner wall is part of the outer case main body 35 (“first casing”) as claimed; instead, it is part of a separate inner case 40 (P27; Fig. 6). The following case law is cited:
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a
fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which
differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means,
whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured
together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons,
“that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior
art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the inner case 40 including the inner wall thereof and the outer case main body 35 (“first casing”) as a one piece constructure instead of two separate entities as a matter of obvious engineering choice given the legal precedent cited above.
Kurihara as modified by Kazumasa as detailed above results in the inner wall of the first casing being located between the modified insulating plate 11 (“fire-extinguishing body”) and the outer wall of the outer case main body 35 (“first casing”), the inner wall of the first casing being spaced from the outer wall of the first casing given all constituents of the battery assembly (batteries, holder, circuit board, insulating plate 11, etc.) of Kurihara would be placed in the chamber just as in Kazuma to protect them from rainwater (P30; Figs. 5-6, 12-13), with Kazuma teaching the inner wall of the first casing is spaced from the outer wall thereof (Figs. 5-6, 12-13; entire disclosure relied upon).
With respect to the above combination of references, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1379, 2020 USPQ2d 10706 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Regarding claim 24, Kurihara does not explicitly teach wherein a state of charge of the plurality of battery cells 1 is 90% or more. The entire purpose of a battery, as would be immediately understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is to provide energy, or power, to a given device, wherein charging the cells to their full state of charge or close thereto in order that the battery cells are operational for their intended purpose of discharging to provide energy to the device would be a routine endeavor for one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide the predictable result of providing a battery cell (or battery module/pack) that is capable of meeting the energy/power requirements of the tool/device it is intended to power.
Regarding claim 25, Kurihara teaches the battery apparatus further including:
a battery holder 2 in the casing 9, the plurality of battery cells 1 being mounted in the cell holder 2 such that longitudinal axes of the plurality of cells 1 are parallel (P30, 41-45; Figs. 3-4, 6-7);
a control circuit board 4 mounted on the first cell holder 4 (P43, P50-52; Fig. 3); and
a plurality of circuit board elements on a side of the control circuit board opposite the first cell holder 4 (illustrated – see Fig. 3),
wherein the control circuit board 4 and the cell holder 2 are configured such that the control circuit board 4 is located entirely [on] a first side of a [virtual] plane parallel to the longitudinal axes and each of the first plurality of battery cells 1 is located on a second side of the [virtual] plane (Fig. 3).
18. Claim 24 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (WO 2019/208219) (using US 2021/0159553 family member as a translation and copy thereof) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0248157) and Kazumasa (JP 2016-018605) (machine translation provided by Applicant in the IDS filed 8/15/2025) as applied to at least claim 23 above, and further in view of Tabatowski-Bush et al. (US 2020/0011934).
Regarding claim 24, Kurihara does not explicitly teach wherein a state of charge of the first plurality of battery cells 1 is 90% or more. Tabatowski-Bush teaches analogous art of a battery apparatus and that the desire is for each cell to be at 100% SOC at the end of a charge cycle is so that the device (vehicle in this case) will have the maximum range while not jeopardizing the cell (P27), wherein as would be recognized to one having ordinary skill in the art, regardless of what the battery apparatus is selected to power (i.e., vehicle, power tool, cell phone, etc.), the desire of the user would be that the battery/batteries are capable of discharging for the longest duration of time to have the longest use period which would be predicated on the amount of initial charge or SOC percentage (P27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the first plurality of battery cells with a state of charge to 100% SOC, a value anticipating the range claimed of “90% or more,” in order to provide the known, predictable result of allowing for the battery/batteries to have the most range or usefulness to the user while not jeopardizing the cell safety as taught by Tabatowski-Bush (P27).
19. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (WO 2019/208219) (using US 2021/0159553 family member as a translation and copy thereof) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0248157) and Kazumasa (JP 2016-018605) (machine translation provided by Applicant in the IDS filed 8/15/2025) as applied to at least claim 23 above, and further in view of Oshiba et al. (US 2014/0370363).
Regarding claim 22, Kurihara fails to disclose the battery apparatus further including a first slot in the casing facing a second slot in the casing 9, wherein a first end of the insulating plate 11 modified to modified to have the at least one fire-extinguishing agent of Suzuki (“the first fire-extinguishing body”) is mounted in the first slot and a second end thereof is mounted in the second slot as claimed.
The claimed feature is drawn to a construct of how to hold/maintain the modified insulating plate 11 within the casing 9 of Kurihara. In the same field of endeavor, Oshiba teaches analogous art of an energy storage apparatus in which it is a known technique to provide a first groove 133a (“first slot’) in support portion 133 in the case main body 100 facing a second groove 133a (“second slot”) in support portions 133 in the case main body 100, with an analogous partition plate 140 having heat insulating properties (P73) inserted therein such that