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 .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted December 16, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 4-6, 8-10, 14-16, and 18-19 are cancelled, claims 1-3, 7, 10-13, 17, and 20 are amended, and claims 21-30 are new, resulting in claims 1-3, 7, 10-13, 17, and 20-30 pending for examination.
The following rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments to the claims or cancelation of claims:
Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meintschel.
Claims 3-8 and 11-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meintschel in view of Fuhr.
Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meintschel in view of Shepard.
Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meintschel in view of Fuhr and in further view of Shepard.
Claim 9-10 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meintschel in view of Fuhr and in further view of Haskins.
Claims 4 and 14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Interview Summary
A telephonic interview was conducted on February 4, 2026 and February 5, 2026. Attorney Nakamura and the Examiner discussed indefiniteness in claim 1, such as in the limitations recited in lines 2-3 (first and second horizontal directions), lines 11-12 (with respect to the first horizontal cell stack), and lines 15-16 (with respect to the second horizontal cell stack).
The Examiner provided a conceptual approach to amend the claim language to describe the claimed invention as depicted in Fig. 5 of the instant disclosure in regard to the position of the “first cross beam member” and the “third cross beam member”. This approach included claiming a plurality of cell units, wherein the cell units each comprise a first cell stack and a second cell stack, and a cross beam member positioned between the cell units. In the annotated Fig. 5 shown below, the arrows point to the cross beam members (first and third cross beam members of claim 1, as currently written) and each of the dashed boxes represents a cell unit. It is noted that the above-described strategy is solely conceptual and is not intended to suggest specific terms or claim language. No specific agreement was reached.
PNG
media_image1.png
663
1095
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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.
Regarding independent claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitations “a rechargeable energy storage system defining a first horizontal direction and a second horizontal direction opposite the first horizontal direction” in lines 2-3. There is no mention of “a first horizontal direction” or “a second horizontal direction” in the instant specification, or how a rechargeable energy storage system defines two different horizontal directions.
Claims 2-3, 7, 10, and 22-25 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore, for the reasons outlined with respect to claim 1, these claims also contain 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10-13, 17, and 20-30 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, claims 1 and 11 recite “a plurality of first cells”, thus claiming a single plurality of first cells. Claims 1 and 11 then recite “each of the plurality of first cells”. It is unclear if there is more than one plurality of first cells. In the case that there is only one plurality of first cells, it is suggested that the limitation “each of the plurality of first cells” be amended to recite “each of the first cells”.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “a plurality of second cells”, thus claiming a single plurality of second cells. Claims 1 and 11 then recite “each of the plurality of second cells”. It is unclear if there is more than one plurality of second cells. In the case that there is only one plurality of second cells, it is suggested that this limitation be amended to recite “each of the second cells”.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by a rechargeable energy storage system defining a first horizontal direction and a second horizontal direction or how a rechargeable energy storage system defines these directions.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the limitations "the first horizontal direction" and “the second horizontal direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations “a first cross beam member disposed in the first horizontal direction with respect to the first horizontal cell stack” and “ a third cross beam member disposed in the second horizontal direction with respect to the second horizontal cell stack”. It is unclear how these cross beam members are disposed “with respect to” the respective horizontal cell stacks.
Claims 2-3, 7, 10, and 22-25 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
Claims 11-13, 17, 20, and 26-30 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, claims 2 and 12 recite “wherein one of the plurality of first cells in the first cell layer”. It is suggested that this line be amended to recite “wherein one of the first cells in the first cell layer”, see rejection of claims 1 and 11 above.
Regarding claims 17 and 20, claims 17 and 20 recite “the vehicle according to claim 1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the vehicle” in these claims. It appears that Applicant intends for claims 17 and 20 to depend from claim 11. For the purpose of examination, claims 17 and 20 are interpreted as depending from claim 11, pending further clarification from applicant.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 recites the limitation “the first horizontal direction”. This limitation is indefinite for the same reasons described above for claim 1.
Regarding claims 24 and 29, claims 24 and 29 recite “extending through each of the pair of vertical walls of the second cross beam member”. Claims 1 and 11 claim the second cross beam member comprising “a pair of vertical walls”. Therefore, it is unclear if “each of the pair of vertical walls” of claims 24 and 29 refers to more than one pair of vertical walls.
In the case that the second cross beam member comprises a single pair of vertical walls, it is suggested that claim 24 be amended to recite “extending through each of the vertical walls of the second cross beam member”.
Regarding claims 25 and 30, claims 25 and 30 recite “each of the plurality of perforations is vertically offset from the elastic spacers”. It is unclear if there are multiple pluralities of perforations or a single plurality of perforations. In the case that the claims refer to a single plurality of perforations, it is suggested that this limitation be amended to recite “each of the perforations is vertically offset from the elastic spacers”.
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 recites the limitation “the first horizontal direction”. This limitation is indefinite for the same reasons described above for claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang (CN115275501A): appears to disclose a rechargeable energy storage system comprising a first plurality and a second plurality of horizontally stacked cylindrical cells (Fig. 1).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789