DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
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.
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 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 4, on which all the other claims depend, requires “an annular adhesive storage groove (160) is formed between [X and Y] and an annular adhesive storage groove (160) is formed between [Z and Y].” It is unclear whether the claim is referring to the same “an annular adhesive storage groove,” or a second “annular adhesive storage groove.” That is, the same name appears to designate two separate objects, and it is unclear whether the second “an” is meant to be a definite “the” or is meant to designate a second, distinct positive structural feature. The claim has been interpreted broadly as requiring either one or two grooves. Claim 5-6 and 14-16 are rejected for depending on claim 4. The Office points out that claim 6 ambiguously refers to “the annular adhesive storage groove.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 7-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cai (CN 109346632 to Cai et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Cai teaches:
a battery tray assembly configured to fix a plurality of cells comprising a plastic bracket or battery holder 5 comprising a plurality of fixing rings (p. 1, Fig. 8) connected to each other through joints between adjacent rings (pp. 1 and 4, Fig. 8)
the joints between rings are provided with limiting protrusions 7 with cambered, or curved, surfaces that are fitted to an outer side wall of cylindrical cells, wherein the bottoms/tops of the cells are connected with an upper end face of the fixing ring 13/14 (p. 4, Figs. 4 and 8)
PNG
media_image1.png
422
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
486
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a tray 3 wherein the plastic bracket 5 is arranged in the tray substrate 2 and the tray is provided with through avoidance holes 10 corresponding to the fixing rings 13/14
Regarding Claim 2, Cai teaches:
an adhesive glue that coats the frame and bracket, fixedly connecting the bracket 5, tray 3, and the cells (p. 4)
Regarding Claim 7, Cai teaches:
a lower end face of the tray 3 provided with reinforcing ribs 18 arranged around the avoidance holes 10 at the sides of the frame
PNG
media_image3.png
444
508
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Cai teaches:
wherein the tray comprises a bottom plate 2 and side plates 3 which are connected to each other, and the avoidance holes 10 are formed in the bottom plate (Fig. 7)
Regarding Claim 9, Cai teaches:
wherein the upper end of the side plate 3 extends outwards to form a flange 19 which is provided with a hanging part (Fig. 7)
Regarding Claim 10, Cai teaches:
convex portions of the side plate 3 which can broadly be described as “limiting blocks” (see Fig. 7, right side and left side of the side plates, or even feature 17 in Fig. 10)
Regarding Claims 11-12 and 17-20, Cai teaches:
wherein the plurality of cells are fixed in the assembly via the glue, etc. (p. 1)
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:
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.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN 109346632 to Cai et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Yoo (US 2022/0238905 to Yoo et al.).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Cai teaches:
hexahedral limiting protrusions and glued battery cells fixed in the assembly (Fig. 8)
Cai does not explicitly teach:
wherein the limiting protrusions are trapezoidal with V-shaped grooves formed on a side end face
Yoo, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a similar holding block for cylindrical cells, teaches rectangular protrusions with U-shaped grooves formed in the side end faces (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
482
424
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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. Yoo renders obvious grooves cut into side end faces of protrusions to form a groove 19. Similarly, rectangular prisms are obvious shapes with trapezoidal prisms. In the instant case, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to alter the shape of the protrusions to any other equally useful shape, such as the instantly claimed shape, as any shape would serve the same purpose.
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