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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application. Claims 8-10 are withdrawn. Claims 1-7 were rejected in the office action mailed 10/15/2025. Applicant added new claims 11-15. Claims 1-7 & 11-15 are presently examined.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The amendment filed 1/12/2026, in response to the office action mailed 10/15/2025, has been entered. Applicant’s claim amendments overcame all 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections; nevertheless, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 due to additional prior art.
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.
Claims 1-7 & 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 1 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 states:
“the at least one first connection terminal and the second connection terminal do not collide with each other in the vertical direction”
Both terminals have a face that is parallel to the vertical direction and a face that is perpendicular to the vertical direction. It is unclear whether “do not collide with each other in the vertical direction” means lack of contact / collision of the parallel or perpendicular faces. For present examination, Examiner presumes that the faces parallel to the vertical direction do not contact / collide.
Claims 2-7 & 11-15 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 100.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-7 & 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20040013938A1 (Murashige) in view of US20060275655A1 (Shirane), together “modified Murashige”.
With regard to claim 1, Murashige teaches the following claim limitations:
A battery pack (Figure A below) for a power system including a mounting portion (figure 4; Figure A below) having an accommodating space (figure 4; Figure A below) and at least one first connection terminal (paragraph 51; figure 4; Figure A below: negative electrode terminal 18) located in the accommodating space of the mounting portion, the at least one first connection terminal (18) for electrical connection and located on a first surface (Figure A below) perpendicular to a vertical direction (Figure A below), the battery pack comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (paragraph 52; Figure A below: secondary batteries 7);
a pack housing (Figure A below) having an internal space in which the plurality of battery cells (7) are accommodated, the pack housing configured to be inserted into the accommodating space of the mounting portion (Figure A below) and configured to be coupled to the mounting portion at an insertion portion through a rotational movement(paragraphs 47 & 51) ; and
a second connection terminal (paragraph 51; Figure A below: negative electrode terminal 5a) electrically connected to the plurality of battery cells (7), located on a second surface (Figure A below) perpendicular to the vertical direction, and configured to be contactable with the at least one first connection terminal when the pack housing is coupled to the mounting portion through the rotational movement (paragraph 51: terminals 18 & 5a connect by rotation),
Figure A: Annotated Murashige Figure 5
PNG
media_image1.png
799
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 also states:
when the pack housing is coupled to the mounting portion through the rotational movement, the at least one first connection terminal and the second connection terminal do not collide with each other in the vertical direction
As illustrated in Murashige’s figure 5, the negative electrode terminals 18 & 5a slide past each other to allow contact of faces perpendicular to the vertical direction. It is unclear from Murashige’s figure 5 whether or not faces parallel to the vertical direction contact / collide. Due to the need for the perpendicular faces to slide past each other, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for faces parallel to the vertical direction to not contact / collide.
Shirane provides additional guidance. Shirane teaches a similar connection mechanism, with external terminal 4 and first internal terminal 6 sliding past each other upon rotation (paragraphs 18, 37-38, & 42; figure 4). Shirane illustrates connection through rotation without collision in the vertical direction, due to the gap referenced in Figure B below.
Figure B: Annotated Shirane Figure 4
PNG
media_image2.png
500
875
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Shirane is directed to electrical connection of a battery pack housing to secondary batteries, with connection of external terminals to internal terminals through rotation (abstract; paragraphs 18, 37-38, & 42). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Murashige’s negative electrode terminals 18 & 5a to slide past each other without collision in the vertical direction, as taught by Shirane, for electrical contact through rotation.
With regard to claim 2, modified Murashige teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Murashige also teaches the following claim 2 limitation:
the second connection terminal (5a) is located a distance apart from a rotation axis of the rotational movement of the pack housing (figures 2 & 5; Figure C below)
Figure C: Annotated Murashige Figure 2
PNG
media_image3.png
455
579
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 3, modified Murashige teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Murashige also teaches the following claim 3 limitations:
the second connection terminal (5a) comprises: at least two extension parts extending in a circular arc shape (Figure D below); and at least one connection part (Figure D below) extending from each of the at least two extension parts toward a space between the at least two extension parts
Figure D: Annotated Murashige Figure 2
PNG
media_image4.png
450
617
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 4, modified Murashige teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Murashige also teaches the following claim 4 limitations:
the pack housing further comprises a support formed as a portion of a lower surface of the pack housing, and wherein the support protrudes from an outer surface of the pack housing in a direction in which the pack housing is inserted into the mounting portion (Figure E below)
Figure E: Annotated Murashige Figure 5
PNG
media_image5.png
762
439
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 5, modified Murashige teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Murashige also teaches the following claim 5 limitations:
the mounting portion comprises an insertion guide groove (paragraph 47; figure 4: latching groove 2c) formed by recessing a portion of an inner surface of the accommodating space in an outward direction and extending in the vertical direction,
wherein the pack housing comprises a guide bar formed as a portion of an outer surface of the pack housing, and wherein the guide bar protrudes in the outward direction, extends in the vertical direction, and is configured to be inserted into the insertion guide groove (paragraph 47; figures 1-2: latch 2b)
With regard to claims 6-7, modified Murashige teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Murashige also teaches the following limitations of claims 6-7:
Claim 6
a detachment member (paragraph 47; figures 1-2: latch 2b) that is configured to restrict the rotational movement of the pack housing in the mounting portion or…
Claim 7
the mounting portion comprises a fixing groove (paragraph 47; figure 4: latching groove 2c) recessed in a predetermined size, and wherein the detachment member (2b) comprises a fixing protrusion (Figure F below) configured to be inserted into the fixing groove (2c)
Figure F: Annotated Murashige Figure 1
PNG
media_image6.png
608
458
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 11, modified Murashige teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Murashige also teaches the following claim 11 limitations:
the second connection terminal protrudes downward from an outer bottom surface of the pack housing, and wherein the at least one first connection terminal protrudes upward from an inner bottom surface of the accommodating space of the mounting portion (Figure G below)
Figure G: Annotated Murashige Figure 5
PNG
media_image7.png
787
658
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 12, modified Murashige teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above.
Murashige also teaches the following claim 12 limitation:
the at least one first connection terminal and the second connection terminal are connected to each other through the rotational movement (paragraph 51: terminals 18 & 5a connect by rotation):
Claim 12 also recites:
an upper surface and a lower surface of the at least one first connection terminal do not physically contact any of an upper surface or a lower surface of the second connection terminal; and
a side surface of the at least one first connection terminal physically contacts a side surface of the second connection terminal (Figure H below)
As discussed in claim 1, it is not certain whether or not Murashige’s terminals collide in the vertical direction, but Shirane provides guidance. As illustrated in Figure H below, Shirane teaches non-contacting upper and lower surfaces, but contacting side surfaces.
Figure H: Annotated Shirane Figure 4
PNG
media_image8.png
464
708
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 13, modified Murashige teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Murashige also teaches the following claim 13 limitations (Figure I below):
a support providing a predetermined distance between a bottom surface of the pack housing and a bottom surface of the accommodating space of the mounting portion,
wherein an uppermost end of the support is in contact with the bottom surface of the pack housing, and
wherein a lowermost end of the support is in contact with the bottom surface of the accommodating space of the mounting portion
Figure I: Annotated Murashige Figure 5
PNG
media_image9.png
758
578
media_image9.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 14-15, modified Murashige teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Murashige also teaches the following limitations of claims 14-15:
Claim 14
a side wall of the mounting portion includes an open portion so that the accommodating space is exposed to outside through the open portion of the side wall (Figure J below)
Claim 15
wherein the mounting portion comprises an insertion guide groove (paragraph 47; figure 4; Figure J below: latching groove 2c), wherein the pack housing comprises a guide bar (paragraph 47; figures 1-2: latch 2b), and wherein the open portion forms an open space where the guide bar (2b) inserted into the insertion guide groove (2c) is rotatable and is exposed to the outside
Figure J: Annotated Murashige Figure 4
PNG
media_image10.png
664
421
media_image10.png
Greyscale
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721