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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 25 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 4, 15, 16, 22, and added new claim 24. With claims 18-20 and 23 cancelled, claims 1-17, 21-22, and 24 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
The claim objection is withdrawn; however, upon further consideration a new ground of objection is necessitated by amendment.
All of the rejections to the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendment. However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, 10-13, 22, and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7: the prior art fails to suggests the transverse wall is separated from the terminals by a present distance; the transverse wall (forming 9B) coupling the two vertical walls (12 via 9A) is in direct contact with the terminals and it does not appear that it would be obvious to modify since the transverse wall necessitates direct contact with the terminals without changing the principle of operation of the device.
Claim 8 depends from 7.
Claim 10: the prior art does not suggest ribs within the receiving grooves or the extension thereof in the column direction.
Claim 11 requires a plurality of cell matrices with an intermediate support plate between adjacent cell matrices, a reinforcing backplane at a bottom of the plurality of matrices, and the reinforcing plate on top surface of the plurality of cell matrices. The prior art suggests elements that could be interpreted as the support plate and backplane, but they are not properly located as claimed; specifically, the prior art suggests the reinforcing plate is arrange in the middle of the plurality of matrices, NOT the top.
Claims 12-13 dependent on 11.
Claim 22 is similar to claim 1 with additional features of claim 9 and claim 10 and further elements related to the rib structures. As stated above, claim 10 is not suggested by the prior art (i.e., rib structures), thus claim 22 is includes ASM.
Claim 24 requires that the limiting member continuous, while the prior art only suggest a discontinuous limiting member (Fig. 8 of Miyamoto) and not reason to modify the structure thereof into a continuous member.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the subject of the claim is missing (e.g., “wherein: extends in the row direction”); examiner assumes “wherein the limiting member extends in the row direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 14, 16, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Miyamoto (JP 2007-080743), hereinafter Miyamoto.
Regarding Claims 1, 14, and 16, Miyamoto suggests an electrical device (automobile, [0001]) comprising (the preparation of) a battery comprising (providing) a battery cell matrix comprising a plurality of battery cells (4) arranged in M rows and N columns, M and N being integers larger than or equal to 2 (see e.g., Figs. 1-2, and 6), each of the battery cells comprising a casing, two end caps arranged along a column direction, and two electrode terminals arranged at the two end caps, respectively, and in the column direction, one electrode terminal (5) of one of two adjacent battery cells being opposite and coupled to one electrode terminal (5) of another one of the two adjacent battery cells (see Fig. 11); Miyamoto suggests a reinforcing plate (6) extending in a row direction (see Fig. 1-3, 7-8, 11) and fixed to the casings of the N columns of battery cells (e.g., fixed through 3B, see Fig. 7), a size of the reinforcing plate in the column direction being smaller than a size of the battery cells in the column direction (see Fig. 7, 11), and the reinforcing plate being fixed to the casings of the battery cells in two adjacent rows among the M rows (see Fig. 7, 11); and a limiting member (12) disposed at a side of the reinforcing plate that is fitted to the battery cells, the limiting member being an integrally formed recessed portion of the reinforcing plate projecting in a direction perpendicular to the row direction and the column direction toward the electrode terminal (5), the limiting member effectively filling a recessed area formed between the opposite end caps of two adjacent battery cells, wherein a gap is formed between the limiting member and the end cap of the battery cell (Fig. 7, 11).
Regarding Claim 5, Miyamoto suggests the limiting member (12) extends in the row direction (Figs. 3, 8).
Regarding Claim 6, Miyamoto suggests the limiting member comprises two vertical walls arranged in parallel and opposite to each other, the vertical walls being coupled perpendicularly to the reinforcing plate and parallel to the end caps of the battery cells, and each of the vertical walls being separated from a corresponding one of the end caps by a preset distance (see Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 21, Miyamoto suggests the limiting member 12 comprises two vertical walls arranged in parallel and opposite each other, the vertical walls being positioned between the opposite end caps of two adjacent battery cells (Fig. 11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 3-4, 9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto.
Regarding Claims 3 and 15, Miyamoto suggests in the column direction, an electrical coupling area is formed between the opposite end caps of two adjacent battery cells; the reinforcing plate is arranged to cover the electrical coupling area; and in the column direction, the electrical coupling area has a first width, the reinforcing plates have a second width. Miyamoto suggests the second width is larger than the first width (Fig. 11), and such a relationship would be obvious from the standpoint of minimizing the area the battery cells take up in the application, thereby allowing one to minimize the size of the application using the battery. Miyamoto does not specifically suggest the second width is larger than the first width by a value in a range of 20 mm to 100 mm. However, since the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, MPEP 2144.04, IV., A.
Regarding Claim 4, Miyamoto suggests the limiting member extends in the row direction and is located in the electrical coupling area between the battery cells in the two adjacent rows among the M rows (Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 9, Miyamoto suggests a plurality of receiving grooves are formed at the reinforcing plate (e.g., 3A, 3B includes grooves for holding cells 4, and are at/near the reinforcing plate 6), each of the receiving grooves extends in the column direction and is continuously arranged in the row direction, and the receiving grooves are configured to mount the battery cells and are constructed to adapt to surfaces of the battery cells (i.e., curves can be seen in 3A in Figs. 1-2).
Claim(s) 2, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto and Kim (US 2007/0111088), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claims 2, and 17, Miyamoto shows a reinforcing plate between modules 2 hence does not suggest the reinforcing plate is one of a plurality of reinforcing plates that are arranged at intervals in the column direction. Kim presents a battery arrangement comprising a battery cell matrix comprising a plurality of cells in rows and columns; each cell comprises a casing, two end caps arranged along a column direction, and two electrode terminals arranged at the two end caps, respectively, and in the column direction, one electrode terminal of one of two adjacent battery cells being opposite and coupled to one electrode terminal of another one of the two adjacent battery cells (see Fig. 2); each adjacent battery pair is spaced to include sensing terminals (B1-B3) to detect voltage. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to space the cells 4 of Miyamoto to enable voltage sensing. Further, Miyamoto uses the reinforcing plate as a means to prevent electrolyte discharge to a lower battery unit helping prevent shorting and corrosion from the leaking electrolyte. It would further be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include reinforcing plates between each adjacent battery pair (4, 4, hence a plurality of reinforcing plates arranged at intervals in the column direction) to prevent electrolyte discharge from flowing to the terminals of adjacent cells (4, 4) under the first column of batteries, thereby preventing shorts and the harmful effects of the electrolyte (corrosion), [0019-0020].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights