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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II (Claims 1 and 5-16) in the reply filed on 11/17/25 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/20/23, 8/30/24, and 3/4/25, 7/11/25, and 11/20/25 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/21/23. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2003-223876 A (JP ’876).
As to Claim 1:
JP ’876 discloses:
a battery (battery assembly) including a plurality of secondary batteries connected in series ([0004], Fig. 6);
a battery cell comprising a case and an end cover that are hermetically connected to each other, as the secondary battery includes an outer can (case) 11 and a sealing plate (end cover) 12 that is caulked with a gasket to airtightly seal the battery interior ([0004], [0030], Fig. 5);
a first position-limiting portion being disposed on a side wall of the case, as the outer can 11 is formed with a circumferential groove portion 15 on a side wall thereof, which functions as a positioning structure ([0010], Fig. 5);
a bracket, as a holding cap 30 is provided for holding and positioning the battery cells ([0005], [0011], Fig. 6);
the bracket being provided with a second position-limiting portion, as the holding cap 30 includes a locking projection 34 formed on an inner surface thereof ([0011], Fig. 6);
the second position-limiting portion is configured to be snap fitted with the first position-limiting portion, as the locking projection 34 elastically engages and fits into the groove portion 15 of the outer can, thereby retaining the battery cell ([0011], [0032], Fig. 6); and
the snap-fit engagement limits a position of the battery cell at least in an axial direction of the battery cell, as the engagement between the groove portion 15 and the locking projection 34 prevents axial displacement and pull-out of the battery cell from the holding cap ([0032], Fig. 6).
As to Claim 6:
JP ’876 discloses the bracket further comprising a body part connected with the second position-limiting portion, as the holding cap (bracket) 30 includes a cap body forming a cylindrical wall, and a locking projection 34 that is integrally formed on and connected with the cap body ([0011], Fig. 6).
JP ’876 further discloses the body part being disposed corresponding to the side wall, as the cylindrical wall of the holding cap 30 surrounds and is disposed adjacent to the outer peripheral side wall of the battery case 11 when the battery is mounted in the holding cap ([0011], [0032], Fig. 6).
JP ’876 further discloses that the second position-limiting portion and the body part enclose an accommodating part, as the cylindrical body of the holding cap 30 together with the locking projection 34 define an internal space that receives the battery cell ([0011], Fig. 6).
JP ’876 further discloses that the accommodating part is configured to accommodate at least part of the side wall, as the holding cap 30 accommodates the outer peripheral side wall of the battery case 11, with the locking projection 34 engaging the circumferential groove formed on the side wall of the battery case ([0011], [0032], Fig. 6).
As to Claim 15:
JP ’876 discloses a battery according to claim 1 wherein the case is cylindrical, as JP ’876 teaches a cylindrical secondary battery having a cylindrical outer peripheral side wall forming the battery case ([0004]; [0011]; [0032]; Fig. 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2003-223876 A (JP ’876), as applied to Claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of WO 2012/147134 A1 (WO ’134).
As to Claim 5:
JP ’876 does not expressly disclose that the second position-limiting portion is disposed at an end portion of the bracket along the axial direction, as JP ’876 does not explicitly describe the axial-end placement of the locking projection relative to the bracket body using axial-end terminology.
WO ’134 discloses a fixing member for cylindrical battery cells in which engaging portions are disposed at axial end regions of a bracket or fixing plate, as WO ’134 teaches a fixing plate provided with engaging portions located at end portions of the fixing member to engage and retain battery cells so as to prevent axial displacement (p. 6, lines 1–14; p. 7, lines 1–10; Fig. 3). The engaging portions of WO ’134 function as position-limiting portions disposed at an axial end of the bracket structure.
JP ’876 and WO ’134 are analogous arts, as both references are directed to mechanical structures for positioning, fixing, and retaining cylindrical battery cells in battery assemblies, and both address the problem of preventing axial movement or pull-out of battery cells during use or assembly.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the bracket of JP ’876 so that the second position-limiting portion is disposed at an end portion of the bracket along the axial direction, as taught by WO ’134, in order to more reliably limit axial movement of the battery cell and prevent pull-out, which represents a predictable use of known battery-retention structures to achieve an expected improvement in axial positioning stability.
As to Claim 7:
JP ’876 further discloses a bracket comprising a body part and a second position-limiting portion provided at an axial end region for positioning of the body part along an axial direction, as the holding cap (bracket) 30 includes a cap body and a locking projection 34 formed at an axial end thereof to position a battery cell ([0011], Fig. 6).
JP ’876 further discloses an accommodating part configured to accommodate at least part of a side wall of a battery cell, as the holding cap 30 defines an internal space that receives the outer peripheral side wall of the battery case ([0011], [0032], Fig. 6).
However, JP ’876 does not disclose that the second position-limiting portion is one of two second position-limiting portions provided at an axial end region for positioning of the body part, does not disclose that the two second position-limiting portions extend in opposite directions, and does not disclose that two accommodating parts are disposed on two opposite sides of the bracket, with each accommodating part receiving a respective one of two battery cells.
WO ’134 discloses a fixing member for cylindrical battery cells having multiple engaging portions extending in opposite directions, as WO ’134 teaches a fixing plate provided with engaging portions arranged on opposite sides thereof to receive and position multiple battery cells (p. 6, lines 1–14; p. 7, lines 1–10; Fig. 3).
WO ’134 further discloses that each engaging portion defines an accommodating part for a respective battery cell, and that the engaging portions are arranged to support battery cells on two opposite sides of a common fixing member (p. 6, lines 8–14; p. 7, lines 1–10; Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the bracket of JP ’876 to include two second position-limiting portions extending in opposite directions at one end of the bracket body, as taught by WO ’134, so as to form two accommodating parts disposed on opposite sides of the bracket for receiving two battery cells, in order to improve battery packing density and enable secure positioning of multiple battery cells within a single bracket structure, which is a predictable use of known battery-holding techniques.
Claims 8-9, 12-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2003-223876 A (JP ’876), as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of WO 2018/180436 A1 (WO ’436).
As to Claim 8:
JP ’876 does not disclose that the accommodating part has a fitting surface configured to fit a contour of an outer surface of the side wall, as JP ’876 does not describe the inner surface of the accommodating part as being shaped to conform to the contour (e.g., cylindrical curvature) of the battery case side wall.
WO ’436 discloses battery holders having arc-shaped (curved) receiving surfaces that conform to the cylindrical contour of battery cells, wherein the curved receiving surfaces contact the outer peripheral surface of the battery cells to restrict radial movement and stabilize the battery cells in the radial direction (p. 2, lines 6–15; p. 5, lines 1–14; Fig. 5).
JP ’876 and WO ’436 are analogous arts, as both references are directed to structures for supporting, positioning, and fixing cylindrical battery cells within battery assemblies, and both address the problem of securely holding battery cells to prevent movement during use.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the accommodating part of the bracket of JP ’876 to include a fitting surface configured to fit the contour of the outer surface of the side wall, as taught by WO ’436, in order to improve stability, contact area, and positional accuracy of the battery cell within the bracket, which would have been a predictable use of known battery-holding techniques.
As to Claim 9:
JP ’876 does not disclose that the fitting surface of the accommodating part is an arc surface, nor does JP ’876 disclose that such a fitting surface is configured to limit a position of the battery cell along a radial direction of the battery cell, as JP ’876 does not describe the inner surface of the accommodating part as having a curved contour specifically shaped to radially position the battery cell.
WO ’436 discloses battery holders having arc-shaped (curved) receiving surfaces that conform to the cylindrical contour of battery cells, wherein the curved receiving surfaces contact the outer peripheral surface of the battery cells to restrict radial movement and stabilize the battery cells in the radial direction (p. 2, lines 6–15; p. 5, lines 1–14; Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the accommodating part of the bracket of JP ’876 to include an arc-shaped fitting surface configured to limit radial movement of the battery cell, as taught by WO ’436, in order to improve radial positioning stability and alignment of the battery cell within the bracket, which represents a predictable use of known battery-holding techniques.
As to Claim 12:
JP ’876 does not disclose that the bracket is one of a plurality of brackets of the battery that are arranged side by side and integrally formed, as JP ’876 teaches a single, discrete holding cap per battery cell and does not describe multiple brackets formed together as a unitary structure.
WO ’436 discloses a battery holder including a plurality of battery receiving portions arranged side by side and formed as a unitary structure, as WO ’436 teaches a holder/frame having multiple receiving portions for accommodating multiple battery cells arranged adjacent to one another, wherein the holder is formed as a single piece (p. 2, lines 6–15; p. 5, lines 1–14; Fig. 5). Each receiving portion functions as a bracket for a respective battery cell, and the plurality of brackets are integrally formed and arranged side by side.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the bracket structure of JP ’876 to provide a plurality of brackets arranged side by side and integrally formed, as taught by WO ’436, in order to improve packaging efficiency, simplify assembly, and securely position multiple battery cells within a compact battery assembly, which would have been a predictable use of known battery-holding techniques.
As to Claim 13:
JP ’876 further discloses that the bracket has a side opposite to the battery cell, as the holding cap necessarily includes an outward-facing surface opposite the surface that contacts the battery cell (JP ’876 Fig. 6).
However, JP ’876 does not disclose that the side of the bracket opposite to the battery cell is a plane, as the outer surface of the holding cap in JP ’876 is shown as curved or contoured and is not described as a planar surface.
WO ’436 discloses battery holders having a planar outer surface opposite the battery-contacting surface, as WO ’436 teaches holder/frame structures in which the surface opposite the battery cells is flat and planar to facilitate mounting, stacking, or integration into a battery module (p. 5, lines 1–14; Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the bracket of JP ’876 so that the side of the bracket opposite to the battery cell is planar, as taught by WO ’436, in order to improve mounting stability, ease of assembly, and integration of the battery into a battery module, which would have been a predictable use of known battery-holder design techniques.
As to Claim 16:
JP ’876 does not disclose a box body, nor does JP ’876 disclose the battery cell being accommodated in a box body or the bracket being fixed in the box body, as the holding cap of JP ’876 is fixed directly to the battery case rather than to an external housing.
WO ’436 discloses a battery module including a box body (housing) in which battery cells are accommodated, and battery holders/brackets that are fixed to the box body, as WO ’436 teaches a module housing that receives cylindrical battery cells and includes holders mounted or fixed to the housing for positioning and supporting the battery cells (p. 2, lines 6–15; p. 4, lines 1–12; p. 5, lines 1–14; Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the battery and bracket structure of JP ’876 into a box body as taught by WO ’436, such that the battery cell is accommodated in the box body and the bracket is fixed in the box body, in order to facilitate module assembly, improve structural stability, and protect the battery cell, which would have been a predictable use of known battery-module housing techniques.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2003-223876 A (JP ’876), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 203103373 U (CN ’373).
As to Claim 10:
JP ’876 does not disclose that the bracket is one of two brackets of the battery, nor does JP ’876 disclose that two brackets are buckled on an outer periphery of the battery cell, as JP ’876 teaches only a single holding cap per battery cell and does not describe a pair of bracket members that are buckled together around the battery cell.
CN ’373 discloses a battery fixing structure including two bracket members that are buckled together around an outer periphery of a battery cell, as CN ’373 teaches two shell-type bracket components disposed around a cylindrical battery cell and provided with buckling or snap-connection portions that engage each other to fix the battery cell in place ([0021]–[0025], Figs. 1–2). CN ’373 further discloses that the two bracket members jointly surround the outer circumferential surface of the battery cell when buckled together ([0023], Fig. 2).
JP ’876 and CN ’373 are analogous arts, as both references are directed to mechanical structures for fixing, positioning, and retaining cylindrical battery cells within battery assemblies, and both address the problem of securely holding a battery cell to prevent displacement during use and assembly.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the bracket structure of JP ’876 to employ two brackets that are buckled together on an outer periphery of the battery cell, as taught by CN ’373, in order to improve circumferential fixation and assembly convenience of the battery cell, which would have been a predictable use of known battery-holding techniques.
As to Claim 11:
JP ’876 further discloses that the bracket is fixed relative to the battery cell during use, as the locking projection of the holding cap snap-fits into the groove of the battery case to prevent relative movement between the bracket and the battery cell ([0011], Fig. 6).
However, JP ’876 does not disclose that the bracket is one of two brackets of the battery, nor does JP ’876 disclose that two brackets are fixedly connected to each other, as JP ’876 teaches only a single holding cap per battery cell and does not describe a structure in which two bracket members are joined together.
CN ’373 discloses a battery fixing structure including two bracket members that are fixedly connected to each other, as CN ’373 teaches two shell-type brackets disposed around an outer periphery of a cylindrical battery cell and provided with buckling or snap-connection portions that engage each other so that the two brackets are fixedly connected once assembled ([0022]–[0025], Figs. 1–2).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the bracket structure of JP ’876 so that two brackets are fixedly connected to each other, as taught by CN ’373, in order to improve circumferential fixation and structural stability of the battery cell, which would have been a predictable use of known battery-holding techniques.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2003-223876 A (JP ’876), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2009/0151863 A1 (US ’863).
As to Claim 14:
JP ’876 discloses a battery comprising a battery cell having a side wall with a first position-limiting portion formed thereon and a bracket having a second position-limiting portion configured to snap fit with the first position-limiting portion, as JP ’876 teaches a circumferential groove formed on the outer peripheral side wall of a cylindrical battery case and a locking projection of a holding cap (bracket) that snap-fits into the groove to position the battery cell ([0011], [0032], Fig. 6).
However, JP ’876 does not disclose that the first position-limiting portion is one of two first position-limiting portions disposed on the side wall, nor does JP ’876 disclose that the two first position-limiting portions are arranged spaced apart from each other along the axial direction on the side wall of the case, as JP ’876 teaches only a single circumferential groove at one axial position.
US ’863 discloses forming a plurality of ring-shaped groove portions on an outer peripheral side wall of a cylindrical battery case, wherein the groove portions are axially spaced apart along the length of the case ([0043]–[0046], Fig. 4). US ’863 further teaches that such groove portions are configured to engage a retaining or positioning member, thereby allowing engagement at one of multiple axial positions on the battery case ([0047]).
JP ’876 and US ’863 are analogous arts, as both references are directed to cylindrical battery structures and mechanical engagement features formed on the battery case side wall for positioning and assembly purposes.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery case of JP ’876 to include two axially spaced first position-limiting portions on the side wall, as taught by US ’863, such that the second position-limiting portion of the bracket in JP ’876 could selectively snap fit with one of the two first position-limiting portions, in order to accommodate different axial positioning requirements or assembly tolerances of the battery cell, which would have yielded predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 pm EST.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/JIMMY VO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/JIMMY VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723