Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that the guide groves of Seo are not holes formed completely through the upper and lower surfaces of the module housing, and the protrusions do not pass through the guide groves to emerge on an opposite end of the housing surface. The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but have not been found to be persuasive.
In regards to the amended limitation requiring that the insertion holes are formed completely through the upper and lower surfaces of the module housing, in regards to the applicant’s use of the term “surface” it is found that the specification does not provide any specific definition of the term, nor is any specific numerical identifier used to indicate a surface when discussed within the contest of the upper and lower surfaces of the module housing. Based on this, a broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “surface” would understand that a surface is defined as a face of a component, rather than being understood as the entirety of an upper plate or a lower plate of the module housing. For the purpose of this office action, an upper surface of the module housing is therefore interpreted as a face on an upper part of the module housing, and a lower surface of the module housing is interpreted as a face on a lower part of the module housing.
Based on this interpretation of a surface a hole completely formed through a surface of the housing would only require said hole penetrating through the face of a plate of the housing, and would not require that the hole extend entirely through the plate. Based on this broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the grooves of Seo, as discussed in the rejection below, do extend through the faces of the upper and lower surfaces of the module housing, thereby satisfying the limitation of the amended claim one which requires that the module housing comprises insertion holes formed completely through the upper and lower surfaces of the module housing.
Additionally, in regards to the applicant’s assertion that Seo does not disclose that the sliding protrusions are “fixedly coupled on opposite surfaces on the upper and lower surfaces”, the applicant asserts that claim 1 as amended requires “insertion holes that penetrate completely through the housing surfaces such that the insertion protrusions pass through these holes and are fixedly coupled on the opposite sides of those surfaces.”. This argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive.
Amended claim 1 recites “such that the insertion protrusions pass through the insertion holes and are fixedly coupled on opposite sides of the upper and lower surfaces”. Here, the language of the claim does not specify which of the sides of the upper and lower surfaces the insertion protrusions are fixedly coupled on. Accordingly, where Seo’s upper and lower surfaces can be understood as rectangular planes, bordered by the ends of the battery module housing and a cut section B (See paragraph 0063) as shown in their figure 6. Accordingly, the ends of the upper and lower surfaces in a lateral direction, rather than a horizontal direction would be considered opposite sides of the upper and lower surfaces. Additionally, in regards to the requirement that the protrusions be fixedly coupled on the opposite sides, the claim does not require any specific fixed coupling at the opposite sides, but rather that the protrusions are coupled on the opposite sides. Accordingly, this limitation can be understood as requiring that the protrusions are positioned on the opposite ends of the upper and lower surfaces, and that they are fixedly coupled, while remaining in said position. As shown in Seo’s figure 6, the protrusions are positioned at opposite sides of the lateral direction of the upper and lower surfaces.
Seo discloses that the crash plates 14 which comprise their insertion protrusions are coupled to other adjacent plates by welding or bolting (See paragraph 0032). Accordingly, the protrusions are fixedly coupled. As the protrusions are present at opposite sides of the upper and lower surfaces of the module housing, and are fixedly coupled by means of welding or bolts, they are therefore fixedly coupled at opposite sides of the upper and lower surfaces of the module housing, thereby satisfying the requirements of the amended claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 13 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.
Claim 13 is indefinite based on the recitation of “a certain distance” in line 6 of the claim, as claim 13 has a previous recitation of “a certain distance” in line 5 of the claim. Here, it is unclear based on the phrasing of the claim if the second “a certain distance” is the same certain distance as the first recitation, or if it is referring to a new and different distance. For the purpose of this office action, the second recitation of a certain distance is interpreted as referring to a different distance than the first recitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 9, 10, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seo (WO 2018190552 A1, with US equivalent US 20200044211 A1 used for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 1, Seo discloses a battery module comprising a cell stack comprising a plurality of unit cell stacks (Abstract, “A battery including a pack housing and a plurality of battery modules accommodated in the pack housing,”), each unit cell stack including stacked battery cells (Paragraph 0039, “Referring to FIGS. 3 to 5, the battery module 10 according to the present disclosure includes a cell stack 11 configured by stacking a plurality of battery cells and a module case for accommodating the cell stack 11.”). Additionally, Seo discloses a module housing accommodating the cells tack structure (Abstract, “the pack housing has first and second sides, the first and second sides having openings, and the openings of the first side correspond to respective openings of the second side, the pack housing has a plurality of guide grooves, and each battery module is accommodated into or removed from an inner space of the pack housing through the respective opening by sliding along the guide grooves.”), as well as a structural reinforcement beam disposed in parallel with the battery cells, between adjacent unit cell stacks, here crash plates 14 which cover both left and right sides of the cell stacks (Paragraph 0043, “Meanwhile, the pair of crash plates 14 covers both left and right sides of the cell stack 11 and is used to secure the structural rigidity of the battery pack.”) which are shown to be disposed in parallel between adjacent cells stacks in figure 3.
Additionally, Seo discloses structure where the upper and lower end portions of the structural reinforcement beam are partially inserted to and fixedly coupled to an upper and a lower surface of the module housing respectively, shown in figure 7 where the upper and lower ends of the crash plates 14 are partially inserted into the module housing, resulting in structure where the unit cell stacks 10 are spaced apart from each other.
Additionally, Seo discloses structure wherein the structural reinforcement beam 14 comprises a wall portion disposed to stand uprightly in an inner space of the module housing, here the middle portion of the beam 14 depicted in Seo’s figure 5, as well as insertion protrusions which protrude from an upper end and a lower end of the wall portion at certain intervals in a length direction of the wall portion, here Seo’s sliding protrusions 14a (Paragraph 0045, “Sliding protrusions 14 a shaped corresponding to the guide grooves 21 of the pack housing 20 are formed at edges of upper and lower surfaces of the crash plate 14 so as to be inserted into the guide grooves 21.”).
Additionally, Seo discloses structure where the module housing comprises insertion holes formed completely through the upper and lower surfaces of the module housing at positions respectively corresponding to the insertion protrusions on a one-on-one basis, depicted in their figure 7 where guide grooves 21 correspond to the insertion protrusions 14a on a one-on-one basis, formed through the upper and lower surfaces of the housing (Paragraph 0045, “Sliding protrusions 14 a shaped corresponding to the guide grooves 21 of the pack housing 20 are formed at edges of upper and lower surfaces of the crash plate 14 so as to be inserted into the guide grooves 21.”).
In regards to the limitation requiring that the insertion holes are formed completely through the upper and lower surfaces of the module housing, in regards to the applicant’s use of the term “surface” it is found that the specification does not provide any specific definition of the term, nor is any specific numerical identifier used to indicate a surface when discussed within the contest of the upper and lower surfaces of the module housing. Based on this, a broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “surface” would understand that a surface is defined as a face of a component, rather than being understood as the entirety of an upper plate or a lower plate of the module housing. For the purpose of this office action, an upper surface of the module housing is therefore interpreted as a face on an upper part of the module housing, and a lower surface of the module housing is interpreted as a face on a lower part of the module housing.
Based on this interpretation of a surface a hole completely formed through a surface of the housing would only require said hole penetrating through the face of a plate of the housing, and would not require that the hole extend entirely through the plate. Based on this broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the grooves of Seo, do extend through the faces of the upper and lower surfaces of the module housing, thereby satisfying the limitation of the amended claim one which requires that the module housing comprises insertion holes formed completely through the upper and lower surfaces of the module housing.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the insertion protrusions pass through the insertion holes and are fixedly coupled on opposite sides of the upper and lower surfaces, Seo discloses said structure. As shown in Seo’s figure 6, the protrusions are positioned at opposite sides of the lateral direction of the upper and lower surfaces. Additionally, Seo discloses that the crash plates 14 which comprise their insertion protrusions are coupled to other adjacent plates by welding or bolting (See paragraph 0032). Accordingly, the protrusions are fixedly coupled. As the protrusions are present at opposite sides of the upper and lower surfaces of the module housing, and are fixedly coupled by means of welding or bolts, they are therefore fixedly coupled at opposite sides of the upper and lower surfaces of the module housing, thereby satisfying the requirements of the amended claim.
Regarding Claim 2, Seo anticipates the invention of claim 1. Additionally, Seo discloses structure wherein each of the battery cells of the battery cell stack 11 comprises a pair of broad surfaces and four sides narrower than the broad surface, depicted in their figure 3. Here, the faces of the battery cell which are normal to the y-axis of figure 3 is considered to be the broad surfaces, where the two sides normal to the x-axis are narrower along the x-axis direction, and the two sides normal to the z-axis are narrower along the z axis, compared to the sides normal to the y-axis.
Seo further discloses structure wherein the structural reinforcement beam 14 is formed of a rigid material through their disclosure that the reinforcement beam 14 is used to secure the structural rigidity of the battery pack (Paragraph 0043, “Meanwhile, the pair of crash plates 14 covers both left and right sides of the cell stack 11 and is used to secure the structural rigidity of the battery pack.”). Additionally, the reinforcement beam 14 has the form of a plate having an area corresponding to an area of the broad surface of each of the battery cells, depicted in Seo’s figures 4 and 5, where the plate 14 has an area corresponding to the battery cells it is placed against.
Regarding Claim 5, Seo anticipates the invention of Claim 4. Additionally, Seo discloses structure wherein the insertion protrusions 14 are welded to the module housing (Paragraph 0032, “The module case includes a pair of first cover plates 12, a pair of second cover plates 13, and a pair of crash plates 14. Each plate of the module case may be made of a metal material such as aluminum (Al). In this case, the plates may be coupled to each other by welding or bolting.”). Additionally, Seo discloses structure wherein the insertion protrusion is inserted into the module housing via an insertion of the insertion protrusions into the interference holes by interference fit, through their disclosure that the protrusions 14a slide into the grooves 21 (Paragraph 0045, “Sliding protrusions 14 a shaped corresponding to the guide grooves 21 of the pack housing 20 are formed at edges of upper and lower surfaces of the crash plate 14 so as to be inserted into the guide grooves 21.”) where they are thereby secured by means of friction.
Regarding Claim 9, Seo anticipates the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Seo discloses structure wherein the module housing comprises a u-frame comprising a base plate and a pair of side plates depicted in Seo’s figure 7, which support a lower portion and both side portions of the cell stack, as well as an upper plate which covers an upper portion of the cell stack. Additionally, Seo discloses structure which comprises a front and rear plate which respectively cover a front portion and a rear portion of the cell stack, here cover plates 30 depicted in Seo’s figure 2.
Regarding Claim 10, Seo anticipates the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Seo discloses structure where the base plate and the pair of side plates of the U-frame are integrally formed as a single body by means of contact and acting together in a unified function. Additionally, the U-frame is welded to the upper plate, the front plate, and the rear plate (Paragraph 0041, “The module case includes a pair of first cover plates 12 , a pair of second cover plates 13 , and a pair of crash plates 14 . Each plate of the module case may be made of a metal material such as aluminum (Al). In this case, the plates may be coupled to each other by welding or bolting.”).
Regarding Claim 13, Seo anticipates the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Seo discloses structure wherein the structural reinforcement beam comprises a pair of wall portions facing each other and spaced apart from each other, here the uppermost and lowermost outwardly extending sections 14a, depicted in figure 7, as well as a pair of connection portions respectively formed at a position downwardly spaced apart from an upper end of the wall portions by a certain distance, and a at a position upwardly spaced apart from a lower end of the pair of wall portions by a certain distance, here the portions of the crash plates 14 which are located between coupling grooves 14b, there being two of those portions, thereby resulting in there being a pair. Here, the pair of connection portions connect the pair of wall portions together, by connecting together in the intervening sections of the crash plate 14.
Regarding Claim 14, Seo anticipates the invention of Claim 13. Additionally, Seo discloses structure wherein the upper end of the pair of wall portions is exposed above the upper surface of the module housing, shown in figure 6, where an outward facing portion of the upper portion of the crash plated 14 is exposed to a side of the battery module along the X-axis, to form an exposed region, which is in turn covered by an additional component of pack cover 30, which also comprises handling holes 14b formed in the exposed region, which are occupied by coupling members P1.
Regarding Claim 15, Seo anticipates the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Seo discloses a battery pack comprising the battery module of claim 1 (Abstract, “A battery including a pack housing and a plurality of battery modules accommodated in the pack housing”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (WO 2018190552 A1, with US equivalent US 20200044211 A1 used for citation purposes) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kumar (US 20080292945 A1).
Regarding Claim 6 and 7, Seo anticipates the invention of Claim 3. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure wherein the reinforcement beam further comprises a flame retardant attached to at least one surface of the wall portion, Seo fails to disclose said structure, instead disclosing that the empty space surrounding the surface of the wall portion has the function of preventing the transfer of ignition from one battery to an adjacent battery (Paragraph 0052, “In addition, since the empty space S2 is formed between the pair of battery modules 10, it is also possible to prevent an event such as an ignition occurring at any one battery module 10 from being transferred to other battery module 10 located in parallel thereto, thereby ensuring the safety of the battery in use.”). Therefore, we look to Kumar, which discloses a battery comprising a plurality of insulated cells (Abstract, “A battery includes a plurality of insulated cells”).
Here, Kumar discloses the use of mica sheets as an insulation member placed between adjacent cells so as to insulate the cells from each other (Paragraph 0005, “As illustrated in FIG. 2, mica sheets 20 are packed between adjacent cells 14 so as to insulate the cells 14 from each other”). Here, where the insulation of cells to prevent heat and flame from moving between cells is disclosed by Seo as in intended function of the crash plates and intervening space between the reinforcement beam and the cells, the structure of mica sheets of Kumar therefore acts to achieve and enhance said intended function, while also presenting structure which allows for further insulation between the cells and packaging surrounding them (Paragraph 0029, “The mica sheets 20 are packed between adjacent cells 14 so as to insulate the cells 14 from each other and from the mechanical packaging.”).
Accordingly, Kumar makes obvious the implementation of a mica sheet on the structural reinforcement beam so as to enhance the inter-cell insulation function of Seo, thereby reading upon the limitation of instant claims 6 and 7.
Regarding Claim 8, Seo anticipates the invention of Claim 3. Additionally, Seo discloses structure wherein the wall portion comprises an outer frame that has an empty inner region, shown in Seo’s figure 7, where the outer frame comprising plates 14 has an empty inner region S1, where the outer frame is formed of a material having a high mechanical rigidity, through the disclosure of Seo that the plates 14 secure the rigidity of the structure (Paragraph 0034, “Meanwhile, the pair of crash plates 14 covers both left and right sides of the cell stack 11 and is used to secure the structural rigidity of the battery pack.”).
Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires a mica sheet which as a same thickness as the outer frame and is inserted into the inner region of the outer frame, Seo fails to disclose said structure. Therefore, we look to Kumar, which discloses a battery comprising a plurality of insulated cells (Abstract, “A battery includes a plurality of insulated cells”).
Here, Kumar discloses the use of mica sheets as an insulation member placed between adjacent cells so as to insulate the cells from each other (Paragraph 0005, “As illustrated in FIG. 2, mica sheets 20 are packed between adjacent cells 14 so as to insulate the cells 14 from each other”). Here, where the insulation of cells to prevent heat and flame from moving between cells is disclosed by Seo as in intended function of the crash plates and intervening space between the reinforcement beam and the cells, the structure of mica sheets of Kumar therefore acts to achieve and enhance said intended function, while also presenting structure which allows for further insulation between the cells and packaging surrounding them (Paragraph 0029, “The mica sheets 20 are packed between adjacent cells 14 so as to insulate the cells 14 from each other and from the mechanical packaging.”).
Accordingly, Kumar makes obvious the implementation of a mica sheet on the open region of the structural reinforcement beam, which is located in the empty inner region so as to enhance the inter-cell insulation function of Seo.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the mica sheet have the same thickness as the outer frame, where Seo discloses that the thickness of the crash plates acts to enhance the rigidity of the structure (Paragraph 0034, “Meanwhile, the pair of crash plates 14 covers both left and right sides of the cell stack 11 and is used to secure the structural rigidity of the battery pack. Thus, the pair of crash plates 14 may have a greater thickness than that of the other plates 12, 13.”), and where Kumar makes obvious the attachment of the mica sheets to the crash plates, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to apply this thickness which is stated by Seo to enhance the rigidity of the battery structure to the mica sheets, thereby further enhancing the rigidity of the battery structure, as well as maintaining consistency in regards to the mechanical process of the construction of the plates in the battery module.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (WO 2018190552 A1, with US equivalent US 20200044211 A1 used for citation purposes) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ha (US 20060194101 A1).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Seo anticipates the invention of Claim 9. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires a pair of terminal supporting members disposed in an upper left corner region and an upper right corner region of the front plate and connected to a positive electrode terminal and a negative electrode terminal protruding forward from the cell stack, Seo discloses structure where the battery module comprises a pair of terminal supporting members, present in the front plate 13, which are connected to the battery’s positive electrode terminal and negative electrode terminal my means of a bus bar which extend forward to the front plate 13 (Paragraph 0053, “In this case, a module terminal may be drawn out of the second cover plate 13 of each battery module 10 and connected to the bus bar, or the module case of the battery module 10 may function as a terminal with polarity by itself to be connected to the bus bar.”). However, Seo is silent in regards to specific positioning of the connection of the terminals to the bus bar, thereby failing to disclose structure where the terminal supporting members are located at the upper left corner and upper right corner regions. Therefore, we look to Ha, which discloses a terminal linking member of a high output secondary battery module comprising a plurality of electrically linked unit cells (Abstract, “Disclosed herein is a terminal-linking member of a high-output, large-capacity secondary battery module or pack having a plurality of unit cells stacked one on another and electrically connected with each other.”).
Here, Ha discloses a terminal linking member which comprises a pair of terminal supporting members 330 and 340 (Paragraph 0052, “Referring to FIG. 3, the insulating member 300 comprises: a first assembly unit body 330 having a female coupling part 331 formed at one side thereof; and a second assembly unit body 340 having a male coupling part 341 formed at one side thereof such that the male coupling part 341 corresponds to the female coupling part 331.”), which are located at upper left and upper right corner regions of Ha’s battery module assembly (Paragraph 0053, “At the outside parts of the upper ends of the respective assembly unit bodies 330 and 340 are formed coupling protrusions 350, by which the assembly unit bodies 330 and 340 are coupled with another insulating member (not shown) stacked on the assembly unit bodies 330 and 340.”), shown in their figure 1, which displays the full battery structure. Here, the terminal supporting members are connected to a positive electrode terminal and a negative electrode terminal which protrude forward from the cell stack structure, Shown in Ha’s figure 5 as electrode terminals 220 and 230.
Additionally, Ha discloses that their terminal supporting members comprise a body portion formed of an insulating material (Paragraph 0052, “Referring to FIG. 3, the insulating member 300 comprises: a first assembly unit body 330 having a female coupling part 331 formed at one side thereof; and a second assembly unit body 340 having a male coupling part 341 formed at one side thereof such that the male coupling part 341 corresponds to the female coupling part 331.”), as well as having a screw hole formed in the body portion in a vertical direction (Paragraph 0049, “At the protrusions 310 are also formed through-holes 320, and therefore, the electrical insulation between the fasteners 500 inserted through the through holes 320 of the protrusions 310 and the electrode terminals 220 and 230 is maintained.”) which accommodate fasteners 500, as well as a terminal slit formed horizontally above the screw hole such that the positive electrode terminal or negative electrode terminal passes through the terminal slit, where the slit is the gap region between the uppermost bolt portion of the fastener 500 and the terminal support member, which is occupied and therefore considered to have been passed through by the terminals 240 and 230, as depicted in Ha’s figures 1 and 2.
Here, Ha discloses that their terminal linking member allows for a reduction in the possibility of short circuits, as well as enabling a safety element to be easily mounted during the assembly of the battery module (Paragraph 0011, “Yet another object of the present invention is to provide a terminal-linking member that is capable of reducing a possibility of short circuits during manufacturing the battery module, enabling a safety element to be easily mounted during the assembly of the battery module or during the use of the completed battery module, and performing a leveling process to the unit cells.”). Accordingly, based on these benefits, where safety is a desired function in the structure of the battery pack of Seo (Paragraph 0045, “Thus, even though an event such as an ignition occurs at any one battery module 10, the event is not transferred to the neighboring battery modules 10, thereby ensuring the safety of the battery pack in use.”), it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to apply the structure of Ha as discussed above to the invention of Seo, thereby resulting in structure which reads upon and makes obvious the limitations required by the instant claims 11 and 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights