DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-04-16, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 11, and 14 have been amended; Claims 2, 5, and 10 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, and 11-20 are pending and are examined herein. This is a 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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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 or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to require that “the first guiding piece is disposed on a side of the second fixing portion facing away from the first fixing portion; the second guiding piece is disposed on a side of the first fixing portion facing away from the second fixing portion.” The instant specification refers to said guiding pieces as “facing the first slot” (¶ 0009 and ¶ 0086 of PGPUB US 2023/0117246), but does not describe or explain an embodiment in which the guiding pieces are “facing away from” opposite fixing portions to those on which they are dispose. Instant Fig. 8 shows what is taken to be a representative embodiment:
PNG
media_image1.png
726
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The first and second guiding pieces appear to face towards the slot, and hence toward their opposite fixing portion(s). The specification does not otherwise use the word “facing” or clear up what precisely is meant by the claim, as the new claim language cannot be found in the specification. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, and 11-20 are 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 that “the first guiding piece is disposed on a side of the second fixing portion facing away from the first fixing portion; the second guiding piece is disposed on a side of the first fixing portion facing away from the second fixing portion.” The instant specification refers to said guiding pieces as “facing the first slot” (¶ 0009 and ¶ 0086 of PGPUB US 2023/0117246), but does not describe or explain an embodiment in which the guiding pieces are “facing away from” opposite fixing portions to those on which they are dispose. It is therefore unclear what the metes and bounds of the claims are. The claims have been interpreted broadly in line with Fig. 8 to require guiding wedge shapes that are sloped away from the slot, and hence away from the fixing portions. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 7-9, and 11-20 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_image2.png
808
606
media_image2.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 disposed on opposite sides of the fixing portions facing away from the respective other fixing portions
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_image3.png
500
596
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The wedge-shaped guiding pieces read on “first and second guiding pieces that are wedge-shaped blocks spaced apart from each other.” Furthermore, the wedges slope away from the slot and away from the opposite fixing portions. 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_image4.png
678
730
media_image4.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 11, Brenner teaches:
first and second openings, or “grooves” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term, that are configured to accommodate and fix the cell modules (Fig. 3)
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 405 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.
Ice does not explicitly teach that the positioning piece 405 is “configured by a sloping structure for snap-fitting into the positioning slot,” but does teach that there are separate configurations possible depending on the desired circuit board size and geometry (bottom of column 9 through top of column 10). Snap-fitting was a well-known connection method in the art (column 13 lines 35-39), and it would have been obvious to make the positioning piece location adjustable to swap between different embodiments, and therefore making the positioning piece separately to snap into the surrounding structure rather than being integrated with said structure in a single specific embodiment. Making separable what had previously been non-portable or unmovable has been found to be obvious. See In re Lindberg, 194 F. 2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952); In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961); and MPEP § 2144.02 V, A [R-5].
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_image5.png
72
88
media_image5.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, 4, and 6 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_image6.png
732
628
media_image6.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 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.
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted 2026-04-16 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. Applicant argues that Durney does not the claimed guiding pieces. The Office respectfully disagrees. The wedge guides of Durney and Ice read on “first and second guiding pieces that are wedge-shaped blocks spaced apart from each other [and disposed on the sidewall(s)].” Furthermore, the wedges slope away from the slot and away from the opposite fixing portions and therefore read on the limitations requiring the guiding pieces to be “disposed on a side of the [second/first] fixing portion facing away from the [first/second] fixing portion” at least within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification as filed. The claims are additionally rejected under § 112 for lack of written description and for being indefinite.
PNG
media_image3.png
500
596
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Concerning claim 11, Applicant argues that it has it been amended to require “grooves” that accommodate the cell structures. Brenner, however, actually teaches grooved portions of the accommodation space(s) to position the individual cells (Fig. 4, etc.).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights