DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/12/2025 has been entered.
In the amendment dated 12/12/2025, the following has occurred: Claim 1 has been amended; Claims 2 and 10 have (previously) been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-20 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Non-Final Rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to require “a guiding structure disposed on the first sidewall, the guiding structure comprises a first guiding piece and a second guiding piece; […] the first guiding piece and the second guiding piece are symmetrically disposed on two sides of the first slot; and the first guiding piece and the second guiding piece are spaced apart on the two sides of the first slot.” Claim 5 requires “wherein a side of the first portion farther away from the first sidewall is provided with a guiding surface facing the first slot, and the guiding structure further comprises the guiding surface.”
Given that the housing, the fixing structure, the fixing structure’s first portion, and the guiding structure can all be formed integrally, it is not clear what “the guiding structure further comprises the guiding surface.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, in light of the specification, is that “the guiding structure” comprises two spaced apart guiding pieces, and now comprises a “guiding surface” of a fixing structure that forms a slot. The guiding structures must actually be “spaced apart.” Everything is integrally formed. So is the “guiding structure” just a named group for an assemblage of different structures? Is the name essentially tautological: a structure comprising different features, spaced apart, with no definite shape, that “guide” a circuit board into a slot? And does “guide” in this context mean anything other than be distinct from the slot which is the circuit board’s intended place?
Claim 5, in other words, appears to require that the “a guiding surface” is a part of both the first fixing portion and the guiding structure, but it is unclear how the phrase “and the guiding structure further comprises the guiding surface” functionally further delimits the claim. What, precisely, does this imply about the shape and interrelation of the “first guiding piece” and the “second guiding piece” made of “wedge-shaped blocks,” and “the first fixing portion” that is part of “the first fixing structure”? It seems possible that claim 5 is meant to refer to a distinct embodiment from the one now claimed by amended claim 1. Instant Fig. 5 and 6, for example, show “guiding surface” 1114 (not very clearly) but also shows guiding pieces 1116 and 1117 as on the same side of the groove, which is now prohibited by amended claim 1 (contrast Fig. 8, which does not show any “guiding surface” 1114 but does show the guiding pieces on opposite sides). The claim is therefore rejected under § 112. It has been interpreted as requiring a lip, of any shape, that can be arbitrarily designated as part of a guiding structure insofar as it positions the circuit board.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 7-9, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenner (US 2019/0013502 to Brenner et al.) in view of Durney (US Patent No. 7,355,861 to Durney et al.) and/or Ice (US Patent No. 7,210,586 to Ice).
Regarding Claim 1, Brenner teaches:
a battery shell comprising a first and a second housing configured to accommodate a plurality of cells and a circuit board 56 (¶ 0053, Fig. 3)
the first housing comprises a first side wall (e.g. 53 in Fig. 3, to which the carrier 58 is welded) and the circuit board is mounted on the first side wall (¶ 0053)
PNG
media_image1.png
808
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Brenner does not teach the specific mounting structure, and therefore does not teach:
a first fixing structure formed of first and second fixing portions disposed on the first sidewall to form a first slot to fix the circuit board
a guiding structure disposed on the first sidewall comprising first and second guiding pieces that are wedge-shaped blocks spaced apart from each other and symmetrically disposed on two sides of the first slot
It was, however, common in the circuit board housing arts to provide slots on side walls of housing formed from two fixing structures, and having guide structures disposed symmetrically across from each other on either side of the slot. Durney, for example, teaches a fixing structure forming a slot having first and second fixing portions for a circuit board, and also including wedge-shaped guiding pieces symmetrically disposed on the first fixing portion (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
500
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Similarly, Ice, from the same field of invention, teaches a similar structure in a side wall for fixing a circuit board (Fig. 5C):
PNG
media_image3.png
678
730
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to provide a fixing structure with a groove formed by two fixing portions, and having two guiding pieces symmetrically disposed across the groove, as claimed, in the structure of Brenner, such as those taught by Durney and Ice, because Brenner does not explicitly teach the mounting structure and because such Durney and Ice teach such structures were conventional mounting structures in the art for circuit boards. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Durney and Ice render obvious:
a long groove formed by a fixing structure, with arbitrarily identifiable “fixing portions” including e.g. near, middle, and far “portions” that can be identified as first, second, etc. “portions” with arbitrary gapping absent some other identifying structure
the portions forming the same groove along a single axis, and therefore parallel
Ice, in particular, teaches a groove having differently shaped portions along the groove (Fig. 5A). It would have been obvious to provide a fixing structure with a groove formed by two fixing portions, and having two guiding pieces symmetrically disposed across the groove, as claimed, in the structure of Brenner, such as those taught by Durney and Ice, because Brenner does not explicitly teach the mounting structure and because such Durney and Ice teach such structures were conventional mounting structures in the art for circuit boards.
Regarding Claim 9, Durney and Ice render obvious:
wherein the guiding pieces and fixing portions are integrated (see Figs.)
It would have been obvious to provide a fixing structure with a groove formed by two fixing portions, and having two guiding pieces symmetrically disposed across the groove, as claimed, in the structure of Brenner, such as those taught by Durney and Ice, because Brenner does not explicitly teach the mounting structure and because such Durney and Ice teach such structures were conventional mounting structures in the art for circuit boards.
Regarding Claim 12, Brenner teaches:
a battery shell housing, a cell module, and a circuit board, the cell module being electrically connected to the circuit board (¶ 0053)
Regarding Claim 13, Brenner teaches:
first and second bus bars connected to adjacent cell tabs and connected to the circuitry (¶ 0050-0053, Fig. 3)
Welding was a common method for attaching bus bars in the art. See e.g. Park (US Patent No. 9,461,338) for evidence of ordinary skill in the art and would have been obvious. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 14, Ice renders obvious:
positioning slots on a lateral edge of the circuit board, wherein the middle fixing structure comprises a positioning piece disposed on a sidewall toward the accommodation cavity and configured to position the positioning slot (Fig. 7)
Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to use a positioning slot like that taught in Ice with the motivation to position a long circuit board.
Regarding Claim 15, Brenner teaches:
a circuit board with cut out portions for receiving a connecting piece/tab
Yao also teaches:
a connecting groove at the edge of the circuit board formed where the bus bar (i.e. the first connecting piece) sits, and from which a connector (i.e. the second connecting piece) extends towards the circuit board (see magnified image below)
PNG
media_image4.png
72
88
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Providing cut-out portions for receiving a tab that extends into the cut-out portion of a circuit board was conventional in the art. It would have been obvious to provide such a portion, or “connecting groove” for receiving a tab in order to make a solid welded connection. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 16, Yao teaches:
a notched U-shape on which the positioning hole is formed, which appears to be similar to the U- or V-shape depicted in the instant drawings
Insofar as Yao does not explicitly teach a “V” shape, it would have been obvious to change the shape to any equivalent shape, absent unexpected results. Where a prior art component has the same function as the instantly claimed component, motivation to alter the shape of the component to any other equally useful shape is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Regarding Claim 17, Durney renders obvious:
bonding pieces 83 that fix the first fixing piece and the circuit board to the side wall (Fig. 7)
It would have been obvious to provide a fixing structure with a groove formed by two fixing portions, and having two guiding pieces symmetrically disposed across the groove, as claimed, in the structure of Brenner, such as those taught by Durney and Ice, because Brenner does not explicitly teach the mounting structure and because such Durney and Ice teach such structures were conventional mounting structures in the art for circuit boards. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 18, Brenner teaches:
a top bonding piece, visible on 58 that compresses and fixes the cells in the housing (Figs. 6-7, ¶ 0060)
Regarding Claim 19, Brenner teaches:
a battery management system (¶ 0037, 0053)
Regarding Claim 20, Brenner teaches:
connecting tab/piece positioned opposite the cells on the circuit module (Fig. 3)
Claims 3-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenner (US 2019/0013502 to Brenner et al.) and Yao (CN 203760541 to Yao et al.), in view of Durney (US Patent No. 7,355,861 to Durney et al.) and/or Ice (US Patent No. 7,210,586 to Ice).
Regarding Claim 3, Brenner teaches:
the first and second housing fitting together to form a complete structure with a top/bottom and side walls connecting the top and bottom
Brenner does not explicitly teach that each part of the housing has top and bottom walls.
Yao, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a two-piece housing for a plurality of cells, teaches:
a battery shell comprising a first housing and a second housing 5/9 configured to accommodate a plurality of cells 6 and a circuit board arranged on top of the cells (Fig. 1, pp. 1-2)
a first housing comprises a first side wall and a first fixing structure, the first fixing structure comprising a first fixing portion, or shelf (visible in Figs. 2 and 3 with the “+” and “-“ signs), disposed on the first sidewall and toward the accommodation cavity, and configured to fix the circuit board
PNG
media_image5.png
732
628
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Yao teaches a circuit board affixed to the top edge wall via posts and/or protrusions, and teaches essentially symmetrical housing parts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide two symmetrical housing pieces, rather than the complementary pieces disclosed in Brenner, since this was an obvious shape change that was otherwise conventional in the art. Similarly, providing the circuit board on top of the cells, or to the side of the cells, was a design choice affected by space and connection geometries associated with the intended use of the pack. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Where a prior art component has the same function as the instantly claimed component, motivation to alter the shape of the component to any other equally useful shape is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. In the instant case, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to alter the shape of the Brenner module such that it had two symmetrical rather than complementary housing parts, each with a top and bottom wall connected by side walls. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to provide a mounted circuit board attached to side walls of the pack in Yao, as suggested by Brenner, since the particular electronic components and design of circuit boards was a design choice left open by both documents as within the ordinary skill in the art dependent on the intended monitoring and control of the battery pack. See also Park (US Patent No. 9,461,338) for evidence of ordinary skill in the art regarding symmetrical housings and mounted circuit boards.
Regarding Claim 4, Yao teaches:
wherein the circuit board is slotted in between a first side wall of a first housing piece and a second side wall of a second housing piece
It would have been obvious to provide first and second grooves formed by fixing structures like those taught in Durney and/or Ice on each side wall of a two-part housing like that taught in Yao, since such structures were conventional circuit board mounts known in the art.
Regarding Claim 5, Durney and Ice teach:
lips on the groove that can be said to “guide” the circuit board and can therefore be said to be part of an ill-defined “guide structure”
Regarding Claim 6, Brenner and Yao teaches:
providing a circuit board within the housing structure, between top and bottom walls
See also Park (US Patent No. 9,461,338) for evidence of ordinary skill in the art regarding symmetrical housings and mounted circuit boards. It would have been obvious to provide the first and second fixing portions rendered obvious by Durney and/or Ice within the housing, and below the top and bottom walls, with the motivation to protect it from the environment.
Regarding Claim 11, Brenner teaches:
complementary housings rather than symmetrical housings
Yao teaches a circuit board affixed to the top edge wall via posts and/or protrusions, and teaches essentially symmetrical housing parts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide two symmetrical housing pieces, each with a sidewall, rather than the complementary pieces disclosed in Brenner, since this was an obvious shape change that was otherwise conventional in the art. Similarly, providing the circuit board on top of the cells, or to the side of the cells, was a design choice affected by space and connection geometries associated with the intended use of the pack. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Where a prior art component has the same function as the instantly claimed component, motivation to alter the shape of the component to any other equally useful shape is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. In the instant case, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to alter the shape of the Brenner module such that it had two symmetrical rather than complementary housing parts, each with a top and bottom wall connected by side walls, and to provide a circuit board fixing structure on each side wall into which the circuit board could be slotted. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to provide a mounted circuit board attached to side walls of the pack in Yao, as suggested by Brenner, since the particular electronic components and design of circuit boards was a design choice left open by both documents as within the ordinary skill in the art dependent on the intended monitoring and control of the battery pack. See also Park (US Patent No. 9,461,338) for evidence of ordinary skill in the art regarding symmetrical housings and mounted circuit boards.
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted 12/12/2025 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. In response to the amendments, the claims are now rejected over Brenner, Ice, and Durney, et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723