DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-12, 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/17/2026. Claims 1-5, 12-17, 19-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
Instant claim preamble is drawn to a product claim to “a cell”. Claims include limitations pertaining to intermediate products such as slides, chutes, and connecting portions. These intermediate products are separable during the formation process and joined during formation process to create an integral element whereby features such as the chute are no longer a chute since they are filled with slide elements. The final product of this example of chute and slide is a joined feature. Since the claims are not drawn to the intermediate products, such as “elements to form a cell”, but to the final resulting cell, the final product is being investigated; a filled chute with a slide does not further limit the scope from a solid plate at the joint between two regions such as a wall. Additionally, MPEP 2144.04 making integral/separable support this interpretation. “How” the pieces are joined is not patentably distinguishable for product claims from features which exist in the same location and provide the same function as the final product produced.
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) 1-5, 13-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kimura (JP 2020-166955).
Claim 1: Kimura teaches a cell having an internal fixed structure (41) of the cell comprising a lower insulating plastic and holder [Fig 6] wherein the lower insulating plastic is provided with and abutting surface that is abut a pole core (22). A hosing (13) has the pole core (12) disposed therein and abuts an outer wall of the pole core [Fig 1]. A tab (25, 26) is connected to the pole core [Fig 1]. A top cover (14) is provided with a terminal (19) and is connected to an end of the housing and the insulating plastic of the internal fixed structure [Fig 1]. Modified Figure 9 is further utilized to map the instant claim language to the prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
328
847
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Kimura teaches a holder to have a first side and second side [Fig 1, 6, 8-9]. The prior art teaches the element to be engaged [0035-0058] such that the lower insulating plate provided with the holder is mounted on the cell. The final product of Kimura as well as the engagement features are sufficient to read on the instant claim scope presented pertaining to the first and second push connection portions [Fig 1, 6, 8-9]. Alternatively, the specifics of the mechanism for ‘push engagement’ is not materially limiting as it pertains to an intermediate product. The push and latching mechanism is not like a backpack where it is unlocked and reengaged whereby a structural feature based on the use of the device, but a feature for setting a final product once and sealing it. The final cell is not materially different based upon the intermediate product or by a product by process limitation of assembly.
Claim 3: Kimura teaches a holder to have slide elements and engagement features [Fig 1, 6, 8-9, 0035-0058] that meet the chute limitation of the instant claim. Alternatively, the specifics of the mechanism for ‘push engagement’ is not materially limiting as it pertains to an intermediate product. The push and latching mechanism is not like a backpack where it is unlocked and reengaged whereby a structural feature based on the use of the device, but a feature for setting a final product once and sealing it. The final cell is not materially different based upon the intermediate product or by a product by process limitation of assembly.
Claim 4: Kimura teaches a corner missing structure that allows for the other object of the cover to fit therein such that a slider feature and engagement feature via a push force acted upon it engages the structure [Fig 1, 6, 8-9, 0035-0058]. Alternatively, the specifics of the mechanism for ‘push engagement’ is not materially limiting as it pertains to an intermediate product. The push and latching mechanism is not like a backpack where it is unlocked and reengaged whereby a structural feature based on the use of the device, but a feature for setting a final product once and sealing it. The final cell is not materially different based upon the intermediate product or by a product by process limitation of assembly. Limitations to “sliding” are product by process limitations, only the final structure of the cell are patentably distinguishable limitations and the prior art teaches all positively recited structural features.
Claim 5: A snap assembly is an intermediate product as the cell comprises a joined feature, Kimura teaches a joined feature [Fig 1, 6, 8-9, 0035-0058]. Alternatively, the specifics of the mechanism for ‘push engagement’ is not materially limiting as it pertains to an intermediate product. The push and latching mechanism is not like a backpack where it is unlocked and reengaged whereby a structural feature based on the use of the device, but a feature for setting a final product once and sealing it. The final cell is not materially different based upon the intermediate product or by a product by process limitation of assembly. Making a snap sound during the engagement is not structurally limiting to the elements.
Claim 13, 15, 17: Kimura teaches a tab that comprises a first portion, bend (27b), and second connecting portion such the first connecting portion is connected to the pole core, the bend connects the first connecting portion to the second connecting portion, and the second connecting portion is connected to the terminal , and the hold is located between the first connecting portion and upper portion of the bend when assembled [Fig 5, 8-9]. Instant claim recites “connected to” but does not recited “directly connected to”; an element A is connected to an element C even if an element B exists therebetween; since no qualifier of electrically connected is utilized, insulating and conductive materials can exist in connection with each other.
Claim 14, 16: Kimura teaches a bend that has a void region [Fig 9]. An empty region exists between the tab and case that is interpreted to be applicants ‘weak overcurrent region’ [Fig 1]. The holder comprises a protrusion (42) that is interpreted to meet the capable of being inserted into an empty slot [Fig 1].
Claim 19: The instant claim is interpreted that the “two internal fixed structures of the cell are provided” are any features which have already been identified in the instant claim 2, else, arguments to these features being new and different features would be a 112 antecedent basis rejection. The features of the cell as described in claim 1 and 2 that have been rejected by Kimura are capable of being disposed on opposite sides of the cell wherein the pole core is deposed between the two fixed structures of the cells and a first end of the pole core abuts against the abutting surface of the lower insulting plastic of one of the two internal fixed structures and a second end of the pole core abuts against the abutting surface of the lower insulating plastic of another on of the two internal fixed structures [Fig 1].
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by, or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (JP 2020-166955).
Claim 20: Kimura teaches a cell to have a tab and space therein wherein the tab has a width and a number of layers with a length of the cell [Fig 1]. The ratio of the pole core to the length of the cell being 0.93 to 0.99 is not explicitly stated by the prior art but obvious to optimize and maximize the volume of pole core material whereby energy density is higher; having a ratio of 0.50 would mean there is a lot of wasted space and weight of cell that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand would be undesirable. As it pertains to the equation of S=W x N: cells are known to be made in various sizes in order to accommodate energy demands, creating dimensioned tabs that operate to effectively transfer charge from the battery to the external terminal is routine to one having ordinary skill in the art. The instant claim pertains to nothing more than discovery of workable ranges to produce functioning batteries that are optimized for energy density demands.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2019/179232 teaches a snap fit engagement [Fig 5] – the specifics of a snap fit are not specific to the final product cell as it pertains to an intermediate product and method of joining.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J YANCHUK whose telephone number is (571)270-7343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-8p.
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, Nick Smith can be reached at 571-272-8760. 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.
/STEPHEN J YANCHUK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights