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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 02/23/2023 and 04/22/2024 are acknowledged by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Clam 1 recites “ each of the current pin and the voltage pin” it lacks antecedent basis. The claim recites a single “current pin” and a “voltage pin” in line 7. Appropriate correction is required.
Clam 1 recites “ each of the current pin and the voltage pin” it lacks antecedent basis. The claim recites a single “current pin” and a “voltage pin” in line 7. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “ a secondary battery” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. The limitation should read as follows “the secondary battery”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites “ a secondary battery” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. The limitation should read as follows “the secondary battery”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “ a secondary battery” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. The limitation should read as follows “the secondary battery”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “ a secondary battery” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. The limitation should read as follows “the secondary battery”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites “ a secondary battery” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. The limitation should read as follows “the secondary battery”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “ a secondary battery” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. The limitation should read as follows “the secondary battery”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “ a secondary battery” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. The limitation should read as follows “the secondary battery”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites “ a secondary battery” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. The limitation should read as follows “the secondary battery”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “ a secondary battery” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. The limitation should read as follows “the secondary battery”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “ secondary battery” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this imitation in the claim. The limitation should read as follows “the secondary battery”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by KR20130071638A, hereinafter 638’.
As to claim 1, 638’ discloses in figures 1-9 (figure 7 is reproduced below):-
PNG
media_image1.png
558
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a charging and discharging device for a secondary battery [see above element 10], comprising:
a body portion [10]; and a head portion located under the body portion [the head portion is where the current pins and voltage pin are mounted; see figure above]
, wherein the head portion comprises a pin mounting portion [see figure 2, element 12 is mounting potion; see also ¶0018] that is configured to be bound to an upper portion or a lower portion of the secondary battery [see figure above], wherein the pin mounting portion comprises a current pin [element 20A, see ¶0018] and a voltage pin [element 20B; see ¶0018], wherein each of the current pin and the voltage pin each comprises a plurality of projections [see figure 8, and contact protrusions 22; see also ¶0022] , and wherein an area where the current pin is formed is larger than an area where the voltage pin is formed [the current pins as shown in figure 2 covers larger area than the voltage pin].
As to claim 2, 638’ discloses in figure above, wherein: the current pin [pin 20A] is formed in a maximum area [pin 20A covers larger area] that can be formed in the pin mounting portion [mounting portion 12], and the voltage pin [20B] is formed in the a minimum area that can be formed in the pin mounting portion [the voltage pin covers small area than the current pins].
As to claim 4, 638’ discloses in figure above, wherein: the voltage pin [20B] is formed in a center of the pin mounting portion [see figure above], and the current pin [20A] is formed at a periphery of the pin mounting portion so as to surround the voltage pin.
As to claim 6, 638’ discloses in figure above, wherein: the current pin and the voltage pin are spaced apart from each other by a first distance [see figure above].
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.
Claims 3, 5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 638’.
As to claim 3, 638’ discloses in figure above, the current pin and the voltage pin are covering the are of the mounting portion.
However, 638’ does not disclose explicitly, wherein: the current pin is formed in an area of 70% or more and 99% or less of a total area of the pin mounting portion, and the voltage pin is formed in an area of 1% or more and 15% or less relative of the total area of the pin mounting portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose appropriate diameter size the current and voltage pins in order to allow effective current flows and effective testing terminal connections, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine s-kill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 5, 638’ discloses the charging current pins and voltage pin have diameters.
However, 638’ does not disclose explicitly, wherein: the voltage pin has a diameter of 0.01 or more and 0.2 or less relative to the of a diameter of the pin mounting portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose appropriate diameter size the current and voltage pins allow effective current flows and effective testing terminal connections. since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine s-kill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 7, 638’ discloses the charging pins and the voltage pins are space apart. .
However, 638’ does not disclose explicitly, wherein: the first distance is between 0.01 to 0.5 times a diameter of the pin mounting portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose appropriate diameter size the current and voltage pins in order to allow effective current flows and effective testing terminal connections, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine s-kill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 8, 638’ discloses the current pin formed at a periphery of the mounting portion to as to surround the voltage pin.
However, 638’ does not disclose explicitly wherein: the current pin is formed in a center of the pin mounting portion, and the voltage pin is formed at a periphery of the pin mounting portion so as to surround the current pin.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the position of the power supplies such us the batteries or the cells in order to allow effective current flows and avoid any possible short circuits, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
As to claim 9, 638’ discloses in figure above, wherein: the current pin has a diameter of 0.5 or more and 0.9 or less times a diameter of the ping mounting portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose appropriate diameter size the current and voltage pins in order to allow effective current flows and effective testing terminal connections. since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine s-kill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980
As to claim 10, 638 show in figure above , wherein: the current pin [current pin 20A] and the voltage pin [voltage pin 20B] are spaced apart from each other by a first distance [see figure above, the current pins and the voltage pin are apart].
.As to claim 11, 638’ discloses in figure above, the first distance is between 0.01 to 0.5 times a diameter of the pin mounting portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)272-8430. The examiner can normally be reached M_F.
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, Julian A. Huffman can be reached at Julian.Huffman@uspto.gov. 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.
/SAMUEL BERHANU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859