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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (KR Publication 100614375) in view of Badam (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0241048).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Hwang discloses a pouch-type battery comprising a flexible bottom plate 110 in which a plurality of electrode assemblies are positioned in a matrix form, and a flexible top plate 130 that covers the electrode assemblies and is adhered to the bottom plate, wherein the top plate or bottom plate has a plurality of drawing portions 133 that have a depth for fixing the electrode assemblies, and wherein a wiring pattern 142 is formed between the lower plate and upper plate such that each electrode assembly is connected in series or parallel, and such wiring pattern may be extended a predetermined length to the outside of the pouch-type battery so as to be connected to a protection circuit board, etc. (Page 4, paragraphs 2-3). Hwang also discloses that each electrode assembly has a positive electrode tab 121 and a negative electrode tab 122 formed therein, which are extended outward, and these tabs are each connected to the wiring pattern (Page 5, paragraph 2). As to claims 2, 3, 11 and 12, Hwang teaches that the wiring pattern is formed on the surface of the bottom plate and that the bottom plate can include the drawing portions (Page 4, paragraph 3), which makes it equivalent to the second enclosure. Regarding claims 4 and 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the wiring pattern would be for on a non-recessed area because Hwang shows that the wiring pattern is meant to be flat and not bent. As to claims 5-7, 9, 14-16 and 18, Hwang discloses that the surface of the bottom plate is insulating, and that the wiring pattern is formed on this (Page 4, paragraph 3), which means there is an insulating layer on the surface of the wiring pattern and between the wiring and bottom plate. Hwang also discloses that the top plate is also made of an insulating material so that the wiring does not short-circuit (Page 5, paragraph 2). Regarding claims 8 and 17, Hwang teaches that the electrode assemblies each comprise a positive plate, a separator, and a negative plate, which are wound to form a stack of the plates and separator (Page 5, paragraph 3). It would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art that wound or stacked batteries commonly have multiple tabs that are combined to form a single positive or negative terminal that extends out of the battery.
Hwang fails to disclose that a plurality of functional devices are placed in the housing with the electrode assemblies to be used in an electronic devices, and that the connecting portions of the wiring pattern protrude from the wiring pattern toward the tabs for connection.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Badam discloses a battery assembly for a computing device 102, the battery assembly comprising: a chassis 200 with an internal cavity 202 in which various internal components are attached, the internal components comprising batteries 206a, 206b, 206c, 206d, a CPU 208, a speaker 210, a microphone 212, and a memory 214, wherein the battery configuration are distributed in voids throughout the internal cavity (Paragraphs 0031-0033). As to claims 2, 8, 11 and 17, Badam teaches that the battery assembly also comprises a battery interface 118 that receives current from the batteries, combines the current, and presents the current as a single power source to the computing device (Paragraph 0037). Badam shows in Fig. 3 that the connections of the battery interface are bent and protrude toward the terminals of the batteries for connection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the battery assembly of Hwang could include functional devices for an electronic device that it is placed in because Badam teaches that this arrangement combines all components into one area to form a more compact battery assembly. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the wiring pattern of Hwang could include protruding connection portions because Badam shows that an electrical connection system can be bent around components in the assembly to allow for connection of all batteries. It would also be known by one of ordinary skill in the art that wiring patterns are flexible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/214984 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Application No. 18/214984 teaches an electronic device, comprising: an enclosure, having an accommodating space; a plurality of functional devices, mounted to the enclosure and occupying in the accommodating space; and a battery occupying in the accommodating space, comprising: a plurality of electrode cores, at least two of the electrode cores having different heights; and each of the electrode cores comprising a lead-out portion; a housing, having a plurality of outward protrusions forming a plurality of accommodating grooves inside the housing; and the accommodating grooves respectively matching dimensions of the electrode cores to accommodate the electrode cores; and a connection wiring, accommodated in the housing and disposed based on a connection relationship of the electrode cores and positions of the lead-out portions to electrically connect the electrode cores, wherein the connection relationship comprises a serial connection or a parallel connection; the connection wiring comprises an output terminal; and the output terminal extends out of the housing for leading out power (claim 10).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY L RAYMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-6545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am-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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
BRITTANY L. RAYMOND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1722
/BRITTANY L RAYMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights