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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Wakuta reference still applies albeit in modified form as necessitated by amendment. The previously cited Suzuki ‘161 reference is now used for means and motivation to modify Wakuta in an obviousness-type rejection. This rejection is not addressed by the Remarks and the arguments are therefore moot.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakuta (JP 2003217539 A) in view of Suzuki (JP 2003086161 A). The machine translation for Wakuta provided by the Office on 5/8/26 is used for citation of Wakuta; the machine translation for Suzuki provided by Applicant on 10/30/24 is used for citation of Suzuki.
Regarding claim 2, Wakuta discloses an apparatus comprising: a mount 3 formed of a paper sheet (paragraph 20); and a battery compartment formed by folding the paper sheet, wherein, the battery compartment includes a bottom 4b coupled to the mount, three surfaces 2,4,5 around the battery compartment are adhered to the mount by margins 6,7, the margins 6,7 are formed by being folded outside the three surfaces around the battery compartment (paragraph 21), each of the margins of two surfaces adjacent to the bottom among the three surfaces includes an inclined portion 5d,5e at lower corner of the battery package, the inclined portion being inclined with respect to an extension of a fold line 5c of the paper sheet, and the fold line being folded to form the bottom, and the inclined portions are set back from lower corners of the mount to a center side of the mount (see Figure 4). Wakuta does not disclose non-adhered lower corners. Suzuki—in an invention for a folded battery case—discloses a non-adhered lower corner 8 that extends from the mount so as to absorb shock (see Figure 10) and avoid damage to the battery (paragraph 29). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form or add a non-adhered corner to the mount of Wakuta for drop damage protection as disclosed by Suzuki.
Regarding claim 3, Wakuta discloses an apparatus comprising: a mount 3 formed of a paper sheet (paragraph 20); and a battery compartment formed by folding the paper sheet, wherein, the battery compartment includes a bottom 4b coupled to the mount, three surfaces 2,4,5 around the battery compartment are adhered to the mount by margins 6,7, the margins 6,7 are formed by being folded outside the three surfaces around the battery compartment (paragraph 21), the mount includes inclined portions 5d,5e at lower corners of the battery package, the inclined portions being inclined with respect to an extension of a fold line 5c of the paper sheet, and the fold line being folded to form the bottom, and the inclined portions are set back from lower corners of the margins of two surfaces adjacent to the bottom among the three surfaces to a center side of the mount (see Figure 4). Wakuta does not disclose non-adhered lower corners. Suzuki—in an invention for a folded battery case—discloses a non-adhered lower corner 8 that extends from the mount so as to absorb shock (see Figure 10) and avoid damage to the battery (paragraph 29). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form or add a non-adhered corner to the mount of Wakuta for drop damage protection as disclosed by Suzuki.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Wakuta discloses that the corners of the faces are angled but not the use of a 45-degree angle or what the corner’s length is. Both Wakuta and the instant invention are directed to battery packing of the same scale: they both comprise suspension holes and are hanging cards. Wakuta also ensures that the battery compartment bottom corner is recessed from the corner of the larger packing such that the batteries would avoid direct contact when the corner is hit (see Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to angle or size the packaging of Wakuta and Suzuki to whichever most appropriate for the battery types and quantities (paragraph 24). Changes in size/proportion are not grounds for patentability. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. It should be noted that the term “cut off” is not given patentable weight as it is only recited as an intention i.e. a possibility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights