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.
Claim Interpretation
All of the claims utilize the term “configured” (either explicitly or implicitly through their dependence on a claim that explicitly uses it) which is a way to express the claimed limitations with functional language. As a result, any prior art that is capable of anticipating or rendering obvious the limitations modified by functional language would read on the claims, even if the disclosure does not explicitly call for the intended usage of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cha (KR 20140087780 A).
Regarding claim 1, Cha teaches a battery pack assembly guide jig for assembling a battery pack configured to support a case cover and case tray of the battery pack when said cover and tray are coupled to each other. See the encircled members of Cha’s disclosure below in their Figures 5 and 6. Although a case tray is not shown, it is clear that the assembly jig has the capacity clamp together to support a case tray and case cover of a battery pack.
PNG
media_image1.png
820
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
606
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Cha discloses a first guide configured to temporarily fix a first side edge of the case tray and a first side edge of the case cover. Cha continues to disclose a second guide configured to temporarily fix a second side edge of the case tray and a second side edge of the case cover where the second side edges are opposite the first side edges of the case tray and case cover, respectively. Cha also discloses a connector (enclosed by the oval) that is configured to connect the first guide and the second guide. As mentioned above, if the guides clamped together, they would be able to support a case tray and case cover coupled together.
PNG
media_image3.png
820
750
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 11, Cha discloses that the first and second guides are provided in a pair, i.e., each of the first guide and second guide is paired with another first and second guide, respectively. See the figure below:
PNG
media_image4.png
820
750
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Although the figure’s orientation seems to indicate that the guides are separated from each other by a predetermined distance in a width or length direction of the battery pack, the battery pack itself is not being claimed. The assembly jig of Cha is capable of supporting a battery pack such that the height direction corresponds with the direction of the distance between which the elements of the first guide pair are spaced. The battery itself is not claimed, therefore a rearrangement of the battery as previously described would not be an obvious modification of Cha (which would require a rejection under 35 USC 103, supported by MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C)). Therefore, an anticipatory rejection of claims 4, 5, and 11 is appropriate.
Regarding claim 6, Cha discloses a first and second connection member that configured to connect the first guide and second guide that are separated by a predetermined distance in the height direction. See Fig. 5 below:
PNG
media_image5.png
820
750
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Cha’s first guide has a guiding body which a predetermined shape and a first tray insertion portion and a first cover insertion portion (the corners into which a case tray or case cover may be inserted) as shown below. Since the first guiding body has a predetermined shape, the insertion portions also are spaced from one another by a predetermined distance.
PNG
media_image6.png
762
702
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, the corners have an arbitrary, predetermined depth and extend in an up/down direction of the first guiding body.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Cha’s second guide is constructed in an identical way to the first guide, so the rationales of rejection for claims 7 and 8 also suffice as rationales for rejections of claims 9 and 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The state of the prior art does not teach the claimed guide members with insertion portions whose widths decrease from the top of the portion to the bottom of the portion. Although the Applicant mentions that purpose of the changing widths is to help secure/support the case cover more firmly (see paragraph [0086] of the published application), no motivation was found to modify Cha, the closest prior art, in such a way to read on the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsuo (US 2013/0108909 A1) discloses a battery pack case comprised of different grooved guides that allow for an easy assembly of a battery. The key difference is that Matsuo’s grooved guides are all parts of the battery case instead of only being assembly aids.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722 /NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722