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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 6-18 in the reply filed on 10/30/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-5 are withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected group.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/12/2023 and 07/08/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: locking structure 14.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “71” has been used to designate both a “protrusion” and “a welding part”. It is unclear if these are two different elements.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “connecting fuse part” (claim 8), “channel wall” (claim 16), and “cooling fin” (claim 16) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 introduces PCBA and claim 14 introduces a NB-IoT without any description as to what the acronym means. Examiner encourages the applicant to recite the proper name followed by the abbreviation in Claims 6/14 when the acronym is first introduced for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner note: the limitation “the environment” in claim 16 lacks antecedent basis. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand “the environment” to mean ordinary definition of an “environment” including the surroundings in which the battery pack is disposed. Therefore, the limitation “the environment” is definite as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the NB-IoT module" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although claim 14 properly introduces “an NB-IoT module”, claim 15 depends from claim 6 rather than claim 14. For purposes of compact prosecution claim 15 is being interpreted as being dependent upon claim 14 as this appears to be the applicant’s intent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 6, 8-12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rejman et al. (US 20180040864, hereinafter referred to as Rejman1) in view of Rejman et al. (US 20210288370 A1, hereinafter referred to as Rejman2).
Regarding claim 6, Rejman1 discloses a battery pack ([abstract]), comprising:
a housing (housing 110 that includes at least a first housing component 120 and a second housing component 130 [Para. 0039; Fig. 4]);
a battery support, enclosed by the housing and supported in the housing (cell holder 600 is enclosed within and supported by the housing 110/120/130 including side walls 125 [Para. 0039, 0043, 0048; Figs. 4,6]). Examiner notes that the limitation “the battery support being electrically connectable to an electric tool to supply electric power to the electric tool” is a functional limitation and/or intended use limitation that fails to further limit the structure of the battery pack itself. See MPEP 2114. However, examiner further notes that the battery pack of Rejman1 expressly teaches herein the battery support is electrically connectable to an electrical tool such as a handheld machine tool (i.e., drill) [Paras. 0037-0038; Figs. 1, 6]);
a collector plate assembly, comprising a collector plate support and a collector plate installed in the collector plate support (heat-conductive insert 650 and/or heat distribution element 660 meet the limitations of a collector plate support wherein cell connectors 550 “collector plate” is installed in the heat-conductive insert 650 and/or heat distribution element 660 [Paras. 0043-0046; Figs. 4, 7]),
wherein the battery support comprises a battery unit, a battery support body for accommodating the battery unit (cell holder comprises the body/individual holes 600 that comprises the individual battery cells of the battery cells 400 [Para. 0039, 0043]), and a PCBA fixed to the top of the battery support body (battery pack electronics circuit board 800 [Para. 0043; Fig. 6]),
wherein the collector plate is configured to be electrically connected to the battery unit (the battery cells 400 are connected to the cell connector 500 [Para. 0043; Fig. 4]),
wherein the housing is fixed to the battery support body to accommodate the PCBA in the housing (The housing 110 is fixed to the battery support body 600 to accommodate the electronics board 800 within the housing [Fig. 7]),
wherein the housing is at least partially attached to the collector plate support directly (the housing 110 including the top 120, bottom 130, and side walls 125 is connected directly to the heat-conductive insert 650 and/or heat distribution element 660 [see Figs. 4 and 7-9]),
wherein the collector plate support is coupled to the battery support directly in a sealed manner (the heat-conductive insert 650 and/or heat distribution element 660 is coupled to the cell holder 600 and the entire system is sealed (i.e., joined/connected together and not left open) [see Fig. 4]),
Rejman1 further discloses wherein the cell connector 500 (“collector plate”) is directly connected to the battery cells 400 (“battery unit”) [Para. 0043]).
Rejman fails to expressly teach wherein the connection is through welding and thus fails to teach wherein the collector plate has a “welding part, the welding part being welded to a terminal of the battery unit to achieve an electrical connection”.
One skilled in the art would appreciate that welded terminals are very well-known in the art and are a common mechanism for attaching battery cells to collecting plate. For example, Rejman2 discloses a battery pack for a hand-held power tool (i.e., a drill battery) wherein the connection between the cell connectors and the individual battery cells is formed via a resistance welding method or a laser welding method [Paras. 0020, 0087].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rejman1 to include a welding part as part of the cell connector such that the individual battery cells are welded to the cell connector via a welding part because Rejman2 discloses that resistance welding or laser welding is a known way of attaching a battery cell to a cell connector and incorporating such teaching would have yielded the predictable result of attaching the battery cells directly to the cell connector. Furthermore, the claimed limitation is obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results [MPEP 2143(A)].
Regarding claim 8, modified Rejman1 discloses the limitations of claim 6 as outlined previously.
Rejman1 is silent on the device including a fuse and thus fails to expressly teach wherein the collector plate comprises a fuse part, which melts to break a circuit when the battery pack experience a short circuit, as required by claim 8.
Rejman2 discloses wherein the battery pack for hand-held power tool comprises a fuse element that protects the electronics system in the event of a short circuit [Para. 0018]. Rejman2 teaches that the fuse element is designed as a wire fuse element that is destroyed (i.e. melted) in the event of a short circuit [Paras. 0018, 0098; Fig. 10].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the collector plate of Rejman1 to further include a fuse element because Rejman 2 teaches that a fuse element would help protect the electronics system of the battery pack by being destroyed in the event of a short circuit [Para. 0018]. Furthermore, the claimed limitation is obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results [MPEP 2143(A)].
Regarding claim 9, Rejman1 further discloses wherein the collector plate support is made of a material which is thermally conductive but not electrically conductive, and wherein the material is a thermoplastic elastomer (heat-conductive insert 650 is formed of a heat-conducting material such as a thermoplastic elastomer [Para. 0050]).
Regarding claim 10, Rejman1 further discloses wherein the collector plate comprises multiple collector plates electrically isolated from each other (cell connector 500 is designed to be variable to be connected to two, four, or six battery cells in a parallel an/or series circuit and thus would be electrically isolated from one another [Para. 0053; Figs. 6, 10-11]). Examiner notes that the limitation “wherein the collector plate supports is insert-moulded onto the multiple collector plates and keeps the multiple collector plates electrically isolated from each other” is a product-by-process limitation. The support being “insert-molded” does not further limit the structure of the device [see MPEP 2113]. There does not appear to be any structural difference between the instantly claimed device and the device of Rejman1 wherein there are individual cell connectors 500 that are in direct contact with the heat-conductive insert 650 that dissipates heat from the battery elements [see Rejman1 Para. 0045 and Figs. 6-7 and 10-11].
Regarding claim 11, Rejman1 further discloses wherein the housing comprises an upper housing, the upper housing comprising a front opening and/or a rear opening allowing cooling air to enter, and an opening located at the top (the upper housing 120 comprises various opening that read upon the claimed openings. For instance, the opening in the housing where the operating element 220 is disposed reads upon either the front or rear opening, also, the openings in the housing where the contact elements 143/144 are disposed read upon any one of the front, rear, or top openings, furthermore, the opening in the housing where the locking element 210 is disposed also reads upon the top opening [see Figs. 2-3 and 6]). Examiner notes that the limitations “allowing cooling air to enter” and “wherein the cooling air leaves the battery pack through the opening located at the top after cooling the PCBA and an outer wall of the battery support body” are functional limitations that appear to attempt to further limit how the device operates rather than further limit structural elements of the battery pack itself [See MPEP 2114]. Examiner takes the position that the various openings outlined above as disclosed by Rejman1 are configured to and would inherently perform the function of allowing cooling air to flow throughout the battery pack to at least some degree.
Regarding claim 12, Rejman1 further discloses wherein the battery support body is an integrally formed plastic member (cell holder 600 is formed of a heat-conducting plastic material with sleeve-type insulation walls to accommodate individual battery cells 400 [Para. 0043]), wherein a rearward-sunk cooling slot and an upward-sunk cooling slot are provided at a front part and a bottom part of the battery support body respectively (rearward-sunk cooling slot(s) are shown at element 130 in Fig. 4 and the same slot(s) at 130 travel to the bottom and also read upon the limitations of the upward-sunk cooling slots. Alternatively, the recess shown at the bottom of the housing 130 (which is formed by the cell holder 600) in Fig. 7 reads upon the upward-sunk cooling slot provided “at a bottom part of the battery support body” [Para. 0048]. Examiner interprets the figures and disclosure of Rejman1 such that the cell holder 600 is formed integrally. However, even if the cell holder is formed of multiple parts, the courts have held that that the use of a one piece construction instead of a multi-piece structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice [MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)].
Regarding claim 16, Rejman1 further discloses wherein the battery support comprises a channel wall exposed to the environment , and wherein a cooling fin is provided on the channel wall exposed to the environment (the cell holder 600 forms the second housing component 130 wherein the bottom/left portion of the housing 130 shown in Fig. 4 comprises individual fins and channels that are exposed to the environment [Para. 0048, Fig. 4]).
Regarding claim 17, Rejman1 further discloses wherein the housing comprises a left housing and a right housing, which are directly coupled to the battery support body by means of the collector plate support (left and right housing 125 are coupled to battery support body 600 by means of the collector plate support 650 [Para. 0044; Figs. 3-4]).
Regarding claim 18, Rejman1 further discloses wherein the battery support body is formed as a lower housing of the battery pack (cell holder 600 forms the second housing component 130 [Para. 0048]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rejman1 and Rejman1 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kano (US 2013/0082659 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Rejman1 discloses the limitations of claim 6 as outlined previously.
Rejman1 and Rejman 2 fail to teach wherein the collector plate comprises “a pin extending from a substantially planar body, the welding part protrudes relative to the substantially planar body of the collector plate, and the pin is configured to be electrically connected to the PCBA, as required by instant claim 7.
Kano discloses a battery pack for an electric tool [Para. 0002] wherein the battery pack includes collector plates 23a/23b wherein the plates are substantially planar with recessed terminal contact portions 36/38 for connection with the battery cells and wherein the collector plates include a bent curved section “pin” 37 that is configured to be electrically connected to the flexible substrate 24 “PCBA” [Paras. 0083-0085; Fig. 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute or otherwise modify the connector plate of Rejman1 such that the collector plate has the planar shape with recessed terminal connections and a bent curved section because Kano teaches that such structure allows for direct welding/connection of the protrusions to the battery terminals and direct connection of the bent section of the connector with the battery electronics [Para. 0083-0085]. The claimed limitation is obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results [MPEP 2143(A)]. Furthermore, the simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., one collector plate for another) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (i.e., connection of the battery cells with the circuit board) [MPEP § 2143(B)].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rejman1 and Rejman1 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Jiao et al. (US 2022/0181718 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Rejman1 discloses the limitations of claim 6 as outlined previously.
Rejman1 and Rejman2 are silent on the use of a sealing ring and thus fail to expressly teach wherein the battery support further comprises “a sealing ring, which is disposed around the periphery of a side part of the battery support body and between the battery support body and the collector plate, to form a seal between the battery support body and the collector plate”, as required by instant claim 13.
Jiao discloses a battery pack module for a power tool [Para. 0002] wherein the battery pack comprises sealing members at each end of the battery support. Jiao teaches that the shape and construction of the sealing members are determined based upon the shape and accommodation space and may be formed as a sealing ring [Para. 0098]. Jiao further teaches that sealing members can be used to ensure waterproof-sealing performance of the battery cell in the battery pack [Para. 0098].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rejman1 to include sealing members, including sealing rings, at any location along the ends of the battery support body including between the support battery body and the 600 and any one of the cell connectors 500, heat conductive insert 650 and/or housing end 125 because Jiao teaches that sealing rings can be used to ensure waterproof-sealing performance of the battery cell in the battery pack [Para. 0098]. The claimed limitation is obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results [MPEP 2143(A)].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rejman1 and Rejman1 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Fujii et al. (US 2022/0149446 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Rejman1 discloses the limitations of claim 6 as outlined previously.
Rejman1 and Rejman 2 are silent on an NB-IoT module and thus fail to expressly teach wherein the battery pack further comprises “an NB-IoT module located in a space enclosed by the housing and the battery support body, the NB-IoT module being electrically connected to the PCBA, thus enabling remote monitoring of a state of the battery pack in real time”.
Fujii discloses a battery pack for a power tool [abstract] wherein the battery pack includes a communication circuit that includes an NB-IoT module wherein the circuit is powered by the battery and included within the battery housing. Fujii disclose that the communication circuit is configured to transmit battery pack information including a serial number, type of battery, or the remaining power level of the battery [Para. 0052]. Fujii further discloses wherein the communication circuit 5/50 is electrically connected to the control board 6 of the battery pack [Fig. 11].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rejman1 to include a communication circuit connected to the PCBA and disposed within the housing with the battery support body, wherein the communication circuit includes an NB-IoT module, because Fujii teaches that such device can transmit battery pack information to an external device that relays important information such as device serial number, type of battery, and remaining power level of the battery [Para. 0052]. The claimed limitation is obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results [MPEP 2143(A)].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Although Fujii discloses the use of an NB-IoT module in a battery pack there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the reviewed prior art that suggests the use of a NB-IoT module that comprises the limitations of claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. (US 20200259135 A1) disclose a thermally conductive resin for dissipating heat away from the battery cells.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3176. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-4:30pm ET Mon-Thurs, 7:30am-11:30pm Fri.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713