DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 2/11/26, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 6, 11, 13, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-16 are pending. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the "Amendment" and "Remarks" filed on 2/11/26.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is 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.
Specifically, Claim 1 was amended to include the limitation:
"...separated from each other by a regular gap therebetween of about 1.1 times the electrochemical cell diameter."
A search of the original specification and drawings as filed on September 6, 2022, fails to reveal any mention of the numerical value "1.1" or any specific ratio defining the gap relative to the cell diameter.
The original specification describes the gap qualitatively as a "regular gap", a "small regular tolerance", or a "regular gap between them".
While the specification mentions the cells are housed in slots to improve heat evacuation, it does not provide a specific mathematical formula or numerical boundary for the spacing.
The drawings, such as Figure 1, are schematic in nature and are not explicitly described as being to scale. Deriving a specific numerical ratio (1.1x) from a schematic drawing constitutes prohibited "new matter" unless that ratio is clearly and uniquely discernible, which is not the case here.
Applicant's reliance on the Declaration of Anton Wass under 37 CFR 1.132, dated February 10, 2026, is not persuasive for the following reasons:
Post-Filing Evidence Cannot Cure 112(a) Deficiencies: A declaration cannot be used to provide a written description that was absent from the original filing. The standard for 112(a) is what the specification as filed would communicate to a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA).
Lack of Inherency: While the Declaration asserts that a "close-packed array" is understood in the art to be "about 1.1 times the diameter", the original specification does not use the term "close-packed array." It uses the terms "regular gap" and "small regular tolerance.". There is no evidence that a PHOSITA would inherently and exclusively interpret a "small regular tolerance" as exactly "about 1.1 times" the diameter.
Introduction of Specific Range: By introducing a specific numerical limit ("about 1.1"), Applicant has narrowed a general concept ("small gap") to a specific embodiment not previously disclosed. This constitutes a change in the scope of the invention that was not originally described.
Because the specific numerical ratio of 1.1 cannot be found in the original written description, Claim 1 is rejected for containing new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is 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.
The claim limitation "about 1.1 times the electrochemical cell diameter" lacks a clear and objective boundary in the context of the current disclosure.
The term "about" is a relative term that may be used in a patent claim if it provides sufficient guidance to one of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) regarding the scope of the limitation. However, in this application, the term is indefinite for the following reasons:
No Definition in the Specification: The specification never mentions the numerical value "1.1" and, consequently, provides no standard for determining how much a ratio can deviate from 1.1 and still be considered "about 1.1" .
Lack of Functional Anchors: While the specification discusses improving heat evacuation and ensuring cells are "perfectly placed," there are no provided data points, charts, or examples that demonstrate a functional drop-off or change in performance at specific ratios (e.g., 1.05 or 1.15).
Contradiction with "Regular Gap": The claim identifies the gap as "regular," which implies a consistent, fixed geometric relationship. The use of "about" introduces a degree of uncertainty that contradicts the requirement for a "regular" (i.e., uniform or predictable) spacing.
The Declaration of Anton Wass asserts that 1.1 is an industry standard for "close-packed" arrays. However, this does not resolve the 112(b) issue:
Scope of the Term: If 1.1 is a fixed "standard" for close-packing, the use of "about" renders the boundary of that standard fuzzy. A PHOSITA would not know if a ratio of 1.15—which might accommodate the "interstitial material" seen in the prior art—still falls within the claimed "about 1.1" .
Subjectivity: Without a specific range (e.g., 1.08 to 1.12) or a functional test described in the specification, the determination of what constitutes "about 1.1" becomes a matter of subjective opinion rather than objective measurement.
Because the specification provides no guidance to determine the metes and bounds of "about 1.1 times," the claim fails to distinctly point out the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 6-12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190319249 A1 (“US’249”) in view of US 20140322581 A1 (“US’581”).
As to Claim 1:
US’249 discloses a casing for an electric battery in the form of a module housing (200) applicable to house inside a plurality of electrochemical cells (battery cells 100) ([0023], [0026]; Fig. 2). US’249 teaches that the energy storage system includes multiple battery cells positioned inside the module housing ([0023]). Further, US’249 discloses that the module housing includes a base (202) and side walls (204) forming a box-like enclosure in which the battery cells are incorporated ([0026]; Fig. 2). US’249 also teaches that the battery cells may be cylindrical and arranged upright within the housing ([0025], [0026]). Additionally, US’249 discloses that the base of the module housing may include slots or positioning means to accurately position the battery cells within the housing ([0026]).
However, US’249 does not explicitly disclose that the lower base internally presents a plurality of identical slots distributed on the full surface having a shape and size adapted to receive a lower portion of each of the plurality of cells such that the cells remain secured in the slots and separated from each other by a regular gap of about 1.1 times the electrochemical cell diameter.
In the same field of endeavor, US’581 teaches a box-shaped battery housing with a base and side walls ([0090], [0094], FIG. 3) having a plurality of identical receiving features—openings and partition walls—distributed uniformly across the full surface to secure cylindrical cells individually ([0052]–[0053], [0094]–[0095]). US’581 discloses a battery cell block comprising a box-shaped housing (61) including plate-shaped side panels (11a–11d) forming a perimetric wall and a base plate (12b) forming a lower base, the housing being made of metal such as aluminum ([0045], [0054]). US’581 further teaches that the bottom surface of the housing internally presents a plurality of identical slots or cell-insertion openings (65) distributed across the base surface ([0053]). These openings have a number, shape, and size adapted to receive a lower portion (negative terminal) of each battery cell, thereby securing the cells within the housing via ridges (66) that engage the cells ([0053], [0094], [0095]). Furthermore, US’581 discloses an arrangement of cylindrical cells in a battery block such that the spacing between the cells corresponds to a defined pitch determined relative to the cell diameter, providing a regular gap between adjacent cells to achieve a desirable packing and performance ratio ([0052]; Fig. 11d).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the metal box-shaped housing and base-slot configuration of US’581 into the modular battery system of US’249. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to improve the structural security and defined alignment of cells during operation, while simultaneously optimizing volumetric energy density and thermal dissipation through the securement of cell lower portions within a metal base.
As to Claim 2:
US’249 discloses a casing for an electric battery as set forth in Claim 1 (see rejection above), including a metal container-shaped housing 200 with a lower base 202 having recesses or openings for receiving the lower portions of cylindrical cells ([0035], FIG. 5). However, US’249 does not explicitly disclose how the recesses or openings are fabricated.
US’581 teaches forming the identical cell-receiving openings in the lower base of a battery housing by machining processes such as drilling or milling to achieve precise tolerances and a uniform fit for the cells ([0072]–[0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ the machining method taught by US’581 for forming the slots in the lower base of US’249’s casing. Machining is a well-known manufacturing technique for creating precise, repeatable geometries in metal parts, and applying it to US’249’s recesses would predictably improve dimensional accuracy, ensure consistent slot shape and size, and enhance the secure fit of the electrochemical cells. Such substitution of one known fabrication method for another to achieve predictable benefits is within the level of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–417 (2007)).
As to Claim 3:
US’249 discloses a casing for an electric battery as set forth in Claim 1 (see rejection above), including a metal container-shaped housing 200 with a lower base 202 having recesses or openings for receiving the lower portions of cylindrical cells ([0035], FIG. 5). US’249 shows cells positioned in individual recesses but does not explicitly disclose that the fit is achieved by inclusion of a separate centering part.
US’581 teaches centering elements such as collars, flanges, or plate structures positioned in the cell-receiving openings of a battery housing to ensure precise alignment of each cell, prevent lateral movement, and protect contacts ([0090], [0094]–[0095], FIGS. 11–12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the centering part features of US’581 into the recess arrangement of US’249 to improve assembly accuracy, mechanical stability, and electrical contact reliability. Such modifications are a predictable use of known alignment techniques in the battery arts to achieve improved manufacturability and performance (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–417 (2007)).
As to Claim 6:
US’249 discloses a casing for an electric battery in the form of a module housing (200) applicable to an electric battery to house inside a plurality of identical electrochemical cells (battery cells 100) ([0023], [0026]; Fig. 2). US’249 teaches that the module housing includes a base (202) and side walls (204) in which a plurality of cylindrical battery cells are positioned upright within the housing ([0025], [0026]). US’249 further teaches that the base may include slots or positioning means for accurately positioning the battery cells within the housing ([0026]).
However, US’249 does not disclose that each cell fits in the slots by the inclusion of a centering part formed by a bowl-shaped body with a base centrally provided with a centrally holed base that leaves the base of each cell accessible, and a perimetric wall divided in different lengths by open slots up to an end.
US’581 teaches a centering and fixation structure for battery cells in a battery housing. Specifically, US’581 discloses a centering part (cell fixation 80) comprising a bowl-shaped structure defined by projecting collars (collars 81, 83) that surround the battery cells to maintain alignment within the housing openings ([0047], [0085]; Fig. 11d). US’581 further discloses that the centering structure includes openings (bond openings 82) that provide access to the base or terminal region of the battery cell for electrical connection ([0046], [0113]). Additionally, US’581 teaches that the retention and centering structures associated with the insertion openings include ridges (66) along the periphery of the openings which guide and retain the battery cells during insertion and positioning ([0053]). These ridges form segmented portions of the surrounding structure that facilitate guidance and secure retention of the cells within the openings.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the centering and fixation structure taught by US’581 into the battery module housing of US’249 so that each battery cell is received within a centering component located within the base slots. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to ensure precise alignment and stable positioning of cylindrical battery cells within the module housing while maintaining accessibility of the cell terminals for electrical connection. Using a bowl-shaped centering structure with openings and guiding structures, as taught by US’581 ([0046], [0047], [0053], [0085], [0113]), would represent a predictable design choice to improve cell alignment and mechanical stability within the battery module assembly.
As to Claim 7:
US’249 discloses a casing for an electric battery as set forth in Claim 6 (see rejection above), including a centering feature for positioning the battery cells ([0035], FIGS. 2, 5). US’249 implies that such positioning components may be formed of non-metallic or insulating material ([0045]) but does not explicitly disclose the use of “plastic” as the material for the centering part.
US’581 explicitly teaches that the centering plate or cup structure supporting the cells is made of resin or other polymer/plastic materials, providing electrical insulation, weight reduction, and ease of manufacture ([0090], [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the plastic centering part material of US’581 in the casing of US’249 to achieve known benefits in the battery industry, such as preventing electrical shorting between the cells and the metal housing, reducing overall module weight, facilitating mass production through molding techniques, and accommodating thermal expansion differences between materials. Selecting a known material for a structural part to achieve such predictable advantages is a routine design choice within the level of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–417 (2007)).
As to Claim 8:
US’249 discloses a casing for an electric battery as set forth in Claim 1 (see rejection above), including a housing with a top cover that closes the container ([0048], FIG. 8). The top cover fits over the housing edges and includes openings for terminal access ([0048]), thereby allowing electrical connection. However, US’249 does not explicitly describe that the top cover functions as a centering device for the upper ends of the cells.
US’581 explicitly teaches an upper securing plate that acts as a lid for the battery housing, fitting onto the perimetric wall and having locating holes that align with and center the upper portions of the cells while leaving their terminals exposed for wiring ([0042], FIGS. 6–7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the upper securing plate design of US’581 into the casing of US’249 to provide both a lid function and precise upper-end centering for the cells, while maintaining accessibility of the terminals for electrical connection. Such modification represents the predictable use of known lid/centering plate structures in the battery arts to improve assembly accuracy, mechanical stability, and electrical integration (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–417 (2007)).
As to Claim 9:
US’249 discloses a casing for an electric battery as set forth in Claim 8 (see rejection above), including a top cover with multiple openings aligned to the cells ([0048], FIG. 8), thereby allowing terminal access. However, US’249 does not expressly disclose that the openings are housing structures that surround the upper portion of each cell or that they include insulating features to separate positive and negative contacts.
US’581 teaches an upper plate with multiple holed housing structures dimensioned to fit around the upper portion of each cylindrical cell, providing centering and stability at the top end ([0042], FIGS. 6–7). US’581 further teaches that these holed housings leave the cell’s positive and negative contacts exposed for electrical connection while including insulating material to keep the contacts separated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the upper fixing part of US’249 to incorporate the holed housing design of US’581 to improve upper-end alignment, mechanical stability, and electrical safety by ensuring the contacts are accessible yet insulated from one another. Such modification represents the predictable use of known insulating and alignment structures in the battery arts to enhance safety and assembly reliability (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–417 (2007)).
As to Claim 10:
US’249 discloses a casing for an electric battery as set forth in Claim 5 (see rejection above), including an upper cover with openings aligned to the positions of the cylindrical cells ([0048], FIG. 8). While the figures in US’249 depict these openings as circular to match the cells, the reference does not expressly state that the openings are circular or explicitly describe the correspondence between the hole diameter and the cylindrical cell diameter.
US’581 explicitly teaches that the openings in the upper fixing part are circular and dimensioned to match the upper portion of cylindrical cells to ensure proper centering and retention ([0042], FIGS. 6–7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adopt the explicit circular geometry and diameter-matched sizing from US’581 into the upper fixing part of US’249 to ensure consistent centering, secure fit, and stable positioning of the cylindrical cells. Such modification represents a predictable optimization of the existing cover design in US’249 to achieve improved alignment and assembly reliability (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–417 (2007)).
As to Claim 11:
US’249 discloses a casing for an electric battery as set forth in Claim 10 (see rejection above), including an upper cover with openings over the cell terminals ([0048], FIG. 8). While the cover’s openings allow terminal access, US’249 does not explicitly disclose the presence of two distinct openings—one central and one lateral—associated with positive and negative poles.
US’581 explicitly teaches that each circular housing in the upper fixing part has a central hole aligned with the cell lug at the positive terminal and a lateral hole exposing the cell’s perimetric edge for negative terminal access ([0042], FIG. 6). US’581 also teaches that these openings facilitate proper polarity identification, wiring, and insulation between the poles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the dual-hole design of US’581 into the upper fixing part of US’249 so that each cell’s positive and negative poles are separately accessible for electrical connection. Such a configuration is a predictable application of known design features to improve wiring efficiency, safety, and polarity management in battery packs (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–417 (2007)).
As to Claim 12:
US’249 discloses a casing for an electric battery as set forth in Claim 9 (see rejection above), including an upper cover with multiple openings aligned to the cells ([0048], FIG. 8). However, US’249 does not disclose that the openings are surrounded by protruding centering cones or guide fingers.
US’581 teaches that the openings in the upper securing plate can be surrounded by conical or tapered guide projections that protrude from the surface to assist in guiding and centering cylindrical cells during assembly ([0042], FIG. 7). These guide projections act as “guide fingers” to align the cells and prevent damage to contacts during insertion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the protruding conical guide features of US’581 into the upper securing part of US’249 to facilitate accurate cell placement, reduce assembly time, and minimize the risk of component misalignment or damage. Such a modification represents the predictable application of known assembly-aiding structures in the battery arts to improve manufacturability and operational reliability (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–417 (2007)).
As to Claim 14:
US’249 discloses a casing for an electric battery as set forth in Claim 2 (see rejection above), including forming slots in the lower base of the metal container-shaped box by machining ([0035], FIGS. 2, 5). However, US’249 does not specify that the machining process is milling; the term “machining” is broad and could include other processes such as drilling, punching, or stamping.
US’581 teaches forming recesses in a plate or base for battery cells using a milling process ([0095], [0098]), noting that milling produces precise, clean-cut recesses with tight dimensional tolerances.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ the milling process of US’581 to form the lower base and slots of US’249 in order to achieve predictable improvements in dimensional accuracy, fit, and surface finish over generic machining methods. Such substitution of a known specific machining process for a broadly disclosed machining step is a routine manufacturing optimization well within the level of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–417 (2007)).
As to Claim 16:
US’249 discloses a casing for an electric battery as set forth in Claim 9 (see rejection above), including an upper cover with multiple openings aligned to the cell positions ([0048], FIG. 8). While the figures in US’249 depict these openings as circular to match the cylindrical cells, the reference does not expressly state that the openings are circular or explicitly note that they are shaped to match the cell diameter for alignment purposes.
US’581 explicitly teaches that the openings in the upper plate are circular and dimensioned to match the upper portions of cylindrical cells, thereby ensuring proper centering and secure retention ([0042], FIGS. 6–7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the explicit circular geometry and diameter-matched sizing from US’581 into the upper fixing part of US’249 to improve assembly precision, prevent lateral movement, and stabilize electrical contact of cylindrical cells. Such modification represents a predictable optimization of existing cover designs to enhance fit and function in the battery arts (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–417 (2007)).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190319249 A1 (“US’249”) in view of US 20140322581 A1 (“US’581”), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Instructables, “DIY Professional 18650 Battery Pack_12 Steps (with Pictures)”.
As to Claim 4:
US’249 discloses a casing for an electric battery as set forth in Claim 1 (see rejection above), including a metal container-shaped housing 200 with a lower base 202 having recesses or openings for receiving the lower portions of cylindrical cells ([0035], FIG. 5). US’249 secures the cells in position via the recesses but does not disclose the use of hot glue between the lower cell base and the slot housing.
US’581 teaches that additional securing or stabilization methods may be used in conjunction with cell-receiving openings to maintain alignment and spacing ([0042]–[0045]).
In the same field of endeavor, Instructables discloses assembly methods for battery packs that involve securing and aligning cylindrical electrochemical cells within a housing using adhesives and positioning structures, like US’249, which is directed to casings for receiving and retaining cylindrical battery cells. Instructables also teaches placing hot glue at the base of battery cells to secure them firmly within their compartments, preventing movement and preserving electrical connections (see Instructables NPL, Step 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the hot glue securing method of the Instructables NPL, as supported by US’581’s general teaching of additional stabilization means, into the battery casing of US’249 to improve vibration resistance, positional stability, and mechanical robustness of the cells. This modification represents the predictable use of known securing methods in the battery arts to achieve improved mechanical retention and connection reliability (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–417 (2007)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190319249 A1 (“US’249”) in view of US 20140322581 A1 (“US’581”), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of CYCT-NewMaterials “CT-S3062 Silicone Potting Compound for Battery Pack” NPL (“CYCT NPL”).
As to Claim 5:
US’249 discloses a casing for an electric battery as set forth in Claim 1 (see rejection above), including a metal container-shaped housing 200 with a lower base 202 having recesses sized to fit cylindrical cells ([0035], FIGS. 2, 5). The drawings in US’249 depict the recesses as circular to match the cell shape, but US’249 does not explicitly state the “diameter in line with” language.
US’581, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teaches that openings in the lower base are circular and dimensioned to match the diameter of cylindrical cells for proper fit and securement ([0095], FIG. 11).
In the same field of endeavor, CYCT discloses materials and methods for assembling battery packs, including the use of potting compounds with structures that secure and protect cylindrical electrochemical cells, like US 20190319249 A1 (“’249”), which is directed to casings for receiving and retaining cylindrical battery cells. CYCT also teaches applying a thermally conductive silicone potting compound in battery packs, including for cylindrical cell configurations, to fill the space between the lower cell base and the compartment floor, thereby providing mechanical stabilization, waterproofing, and thermal management (pp. 1–3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the explicit circular, diameter-matched slot design of US’581 into the casing of US’249 to ensure uniform fit and secure retention of cylindrical cells, and to further apply the silicone potting compound of the CYCT NPL to fill any clearance between the slots and the cell bases for improved vibration resistance, heat dissipation, and structural integrity. Such modifications represent the predictable use of known design and material features in the battery arts to achieve enhanced mechanical and thermal performance (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–417 (2007)).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190319249 A1 (“US’249”) in view of US 20140322581 A1 (“US’581”), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Tobar NPL (“design criteria for the bore and shaft”).
As to Claim 13:
US’249 discloses a casing for an electric battery as set forth in Claim 12 (see rejection above), but does not disclose centering cones or their geometric details.
US’581, in the same field of endeavor, teaches centering cones or tapered guide projections protruding around each holed housing of the upper securing plate ([0042], FIG. 7) and shows a smoothly curved apex facilitating insertion of cylindrical cells, though without an explicit angle specification.
Tobar teaches detailed design parameters for tapered guide features, including the use of rounded lead-in geometry to avoid component damage (p. 13, “these corners must be burr free and blended”), and recommends a chamfer/lead-in angle of 15° (or 30° alternative) for optimal guidance into receiving bores (p. 13, “15/30º” with depth range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the 15° tilt and rounded vortex geometry from Tobar into the centering cones taught by US’581 for use in the battery casing of US’249. Doing so would improve assembly ease, reduce insertion damage, and ensure consistent alignment—benefits well recognized in the mechanical and electrical assembly arts. This combination represents a predictable optimization of known guiding features to achieve improved manufacturability and operational reliability (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–417 (2007)).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190319249 A1 (“US’249”) in view of US 20140322581 A1 (“US’581”) and CYCT NPL, as applied to Claim 5, and further in view of the US 10,799,992 (“US’992”).
As to Claim 15:
US’249 discloses a casing for an electric battery as set forth in Claim 5 (see rejection above), including a base structure and cell-positioning features ([0035], FIGS. 2, 5, 8). However, ’249 does not disclose a bowl-shaped centering part or the specific wall segmentation by different-length open slots.
US’581, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a molded centering insert for cylindrical cells ([0042], FIGS. 5–7) with recessed wells that leave the cell bases accessible for electrical connection. While ’581’s insert performs alignment and retention functions, it does not disclose that its perimetric wall is divided by different-length open slots.
In the same field of endeavor, US’992 teaches varying-length open-ended slots in a cylindrical wall to improve insertion tolerance, compliance, and alignment-solutions directly applicable to the problem of US’249 of centering and securing cylindrical cells within a rigid housing. US’992 teaches a cylindrical/perimetric wall structure (collet) with a plurality of axial slots that are open to one or both ends of the wall, wherein the slots vary in length — “may extend a full length or a partial length … may start from either or both open ends … first-end slots interdigitating with second-end slots … spacing … may vary … length-wise” (col. 7, lines 5–20; FIGS. 3–5). This explicitly meets the “perimetric wall divided in different lengths by open slots up to an end” limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adapt the centering insert of ’581, as used in the battery casing of ’249, to include the alternating-length, open-ended slot arrangement of ’992 to facilitate improved flexibility, assembly tolerance, and stress relief in the perimetric wall. Such wall segmentation is a known mechanical practice for guiding cylindrical components and would be a predictable design choice to improve insertion and retention of cylindrical battery cells, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–417 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended limitation requiring a gap of about 1.1 times the cell diameter corresponds to a close-packed hexagonal array and that neither US’249 nor US’581 teach such an arrangement. However, the claims do not recite a hexagonal packing geometry. Rather, the claims only require that the cells be separated by a regular gap of about 1.1 times the electrochemical cell diameter. Therefore, applicant’s arguments directed to hexagonal packing are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Applicant further argues that US’249 teaches spacing of about 1.5× the cell diameter and therefore teaches away from closer packing. However, US’249 merely discloses one example of spacing used in its embodiment and does not criticize or discredit closer spacing between cells. The spacing between cylindrical battery cells represents a result-effective design parameter affecting energy density, thermal management, and structural stability. Optimization of such spacing to achieve different design goals would have been within the routine skill of the art.
Applicant also argues that US’581 teaches square packing rather than hexagonal packing. However, US’581 is relied upon for teaching the metal housing structure including base openings configured to receive cylindrical battery cells. The rejection does not rely on US’581 for a specific packing geometry. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection.
For the reasons above, applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/JIMMY VO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/JIMMY VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723