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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 and 13 are amended, Claim 15 are newly added and Claims 1-15 are pending.
Specification
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the abstract filed 05/11/2026.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 4 is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 05/11/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection of Claims 2-3, 5-9 and 10-12 is withdrawn in view of the amendments filed 05/11/2026.
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.
Claims 1-3, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alisic et al. (US 20210313649 A1), hereinafter "Alisic" in view of Herron et al. (US 20210098759 A1), hereinafter “Herron”. Alisic and Herron et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery cell holders.
In regard to Claims 1 and 15, Alisic et al. discloses a battery unit comprising: a plurality of cylindrical cells arranged such that a plurality of electrode terminals face in a same direction; and a cell holder that holds the plurality of cylindrical cells; wherein the cell holder includes a first end holder, an elastic intermediate holder, and a second end holder which are arranged in order in a length direction of the cylindrical cell (Alisic, Abstract).
Alisic et al. also discloses the intermediate holder includes an intermediate cylindrical hole that penetrates in the length direction of the cylindrical cell and houses an intermediate portion of the cylindrical cell in the length direction, a first opening that opens from the intermediate cylindrical hole toward the first end holder, a first edge that is an edge of the first opening, a second opening that opens from the intermediate cylindrical hole toward the second end holder, and a second edge that is an edge of the second opening (Alisic, [0005], Figure 3).
Alisic et al. further discloses the first end holder which includes a first cylindrical hole that penetrates in the length direction and houses one end of the cylindrical cell in the length direction; a third opening that opens from the first cylindrical hole toward the intermediate holder, and a third edge that is an edge of the third opening as well as a second end holder that includes a second cylindrical hole that penetrates in the length direction and houses the other end of the cylindrical cell in the length direction, a fourth opening that opens from the second cylindrical hole toward the intermediate holder, and a fourth edge that is an edge of the fourth opening (Alisic, [0040]).
Additionally, Alisic et al. discloses the first cylindrical hole, the intermediate cylindrical hole, and the second cylindrical hole are arranged in order in the length direction to form a cell housing portion in which one of the cylindrical cells is housed, a same number of the cell housing portions as the plurality of cylindrical cells are provided (Alisic, [0016-0017], Figure 2), wherein the first edge and the third edge are abutted against each other to form an annular first mating surface as viewed in the length direction and wherein the second edge and the fourth edge are abutted against each other to form an annular second mating surface as viewed in the length direction (See Annotated Figure 1).
Alisic et al. also discloses at least one of a sectional shape of the first mating surface and a sectional shape of the second mating surface includes an intersection surface intersecting a planar direction orthogonal to the length direction (See Annotated Figure 5).
Lastly, while Alisic et al. is silent as to the diameter of the cylindrical hole in the intermediate unit, the material chosen for the intermediate unit is an elastic material which is configured to create compressive contact and elastically deform in order to clamp the battery cells (Alisic, Abstract), Therefore the diameter of the cylindrical hole in the intermediate unit must be some degree smaller than the diameter of the cell in order to create a compressive force and clamp the battery cells, as a cylindrical hole that was the same exact size or larger than the battery cell would not be capable of creating a compressive load and clamping the cells.
The skilled artisan would recognize this as but one technique to provide a compressive force from the elastic cell holder to the cells and would also find it obvious to try alternative techniques wherein the intermediate holder is formed of an elastic body, and an inner diameter of the intermediate cylindrical hole, in an undeformed state of the intermediate holder, is smaller than an outer diameter of the cylindrical cell as evidenced by Herron et al. Herron discloses a cell holder (battery cassette) comprising an intermediate holder (seal component) wherein the intermediate holder is formed of an elastic body (Herron, [0032]), and an inner diameter of the intermediate cylindrical hole (d3 and d4), in an undeformed state of the intermediate holder, is smaller than an outer diameter of the cylindrical cell (d5) (Herron, [0037-0038]). The advantageous technique allows the battery cells to be secured in the holder in a state in which the cylindrical cell is received in the intermediate cylindrical hole, an inner peripheral surface of the intermediate cylindrical hole is in close contact with an outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical cell by an interference fit with elastic intermediate holder due to outer diameter d5 of battery cells being smaller than inner diameter d3 of the intermediate holder (Herron, [0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the elastic intermediate cell holder of Alisic with a hole diameter smaller than that of the battery cell in an undeformed state as taught in Herron et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
PNG
media_image1.png
412
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
569
641
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5
In regard to Claims 2-3, Alisic in view of Herron et al. discloses the battery unit according to claim 1. Alisic et al. also discloses wherein the intersection surface extends in a circumferential direction (Alisic, Figure 6), which further has an annular shape (Alisic, [0017]).
In regard to Claim 13, Alisic in view of Herron et al. discloses the battery unit according to claim 1. Alisic et al. also discloses wherein the first end holder and the second end holder are formed of thermoplastic resin, and the intermediate holder is formed of an elastic body (Alisic, [0003]).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alisic et al. (US 20210313649 A1), hereinafter "Alisic" in view of Herron et al. (US 20210098759 A1), hereinafter “Herron” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kawamura et al. (US 5578392 A), hereinafter "Kawamura". Alisic, Herron and Kawamura et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery cell holders.
In regard to Claim 4, Alisic in view of Herron et al. discloses the battery unit according to claim 1. Alisic et al. also discloses an embodiment where the first edge has a shape and structure (Alisic, Figure 6) and a second embodiment where the second edge has a different shape and structure than the first edge (Alisic, Figure 4) and even though the shape of the first and second edge may have a similar shape as each other in each embodiment a variation in shape and structure is contemplated and would yield predictable results.
Kawamura et al. discloses a cell holder wherein the first end holder (upper end portion), an intermediate holder (supporting member), and a second end holder (lower end portion) (Kawamura, Abstract), wherein the interface of the upper and lower end portions mate with the intermediate holders surfaces and wherein the sections have a different shape and size (Kawamura, Column 4, Figures 24, 25) which is done, in part to create an orientation constraint for the cylindrical cells that prevents a mismatch during assembly (Kawamura, Columns 10-11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a first and second edge which are a different shape from each other as taught in Kawamura and as depicted in Alisic as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Kawamura and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alisic et al. (US 20210313649 A1), hereinafter "Alisic" in view of Herron et al. (US 20210098759 A1), hereinafter “Herron” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hashimoto et al. (JP2019216054A - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Hashimoto". Alisic, Herron and Hashimoto et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery cell holders.
In regard to Claims 5-9, Alisic in view of Herron et al. discloses the battery unit according to claim 1. Alisic et al. also discloses wherein a sectional shape of the intersection surface is an arc surface (See Annotated Figure 5). While the skilled artisan of Alisic et al. provides the intersection surface in some sectional shape, it is not particularly limited and the desired result is having the surfaces abut tightly and sealingly against the surfaces in contact with the intermediate holder material, dampen vibration and improve heat dissipation (Alisic, [0003, 0051]).
Further, Hashimoto et al. discloses a battery unit comprising cylindrical cells and a cell holder that holds the plurality of cylindrical cells; wherein the cell holder includes a first end holder, an intermediate holder, and a second end holder which are arranged in order in a length direction of the cylindrical cell (Hashimoto, Abstract), wherein an annular first mating surface as viewed in the length direction is formed with the edges of the intermediate holders and end holders and a sectional shape of the mating surfaces includes an intersection surface intersecting a planar direction orthogonal to the length direction (Hashimoto, [10-12]).
Hashimoto et al. also discloses the elastically deforming convex portion (intersection surface) can have a truncated pyramid shape (linear slope) and wherein a sectional shape of the slope is inclined so as to be located in a length direction in which the first or second end holder is disposed as viewed from the intermediate holder as being away from the cylindrical cell (Hashimoto [11-12]), Hashimoto et al also discloses the intersection surface may be any one of a truncated cone shape, a hemispherical shape, a semi-elliptical spherical shape a trapezoidal shaped, drop shaped or triangular shaped (V shape) (Hashimoto, [11, 18, 47-48).
The shape of the intersection surface is one that is optimized by the skilled artisan and as taught in Hashimoto, has the beneficial function of abutting tightly and sealingly against the surfaces in contact with the intermediate holder material by increasing the frictional resistance and dampening movement and rotation of the cells (Hashimoto, [9]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an intersection surface with a beneficial shape as taught in Hashimoto as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Hashimoto and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claims 10-12, Alisic in view of Herron et al. discloses the battery unit according to claim 1. Alisic et al. also discloses wherein the intersection surface extends linearly in the length direction, and at least one of the sectional shapes of the first mating surface and the sectional shape of the second mating surface is a rectangular shape (Alisic, Figure 2), but is silent as to the shape being a rectangular wave.
Hashimoto et al. discloses the sectional shape of a mating surface may be a columnar shape and discloses a plurality of protrusions (rectangular wave) at the mating surfaces (Hashimoto, Figure 11) which is nothing more than a pattern which the skilled artisan can optimize and would be obvious to try in an intermittent or continuous fashion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide rectangular waved shaped patterns on the mating surfaces as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of a pattern for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alisic et al. (US 20210313649 A1), hereinafter "Alisic" in view of Herron et al. (US 20210098759 A1), hereinafter “Herron” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Razack et al. (US 20160319174 A1), hereinafter "Razack". Alisic, Herron and Razack et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery cell holders.
In regard to Claim 14, Alisic in view of Herron et al. discloses the battery unit according to claim 13. Alisic et al. also discloses wherein the intermediate holder is formed of an elastic body such as a polymer (Alisic, [0049]), but is silent as to a phase change material being included. The skilled artisan of Alisic must provide some material for the intermediate holder which has certain properties well known to the skilled artisan in the same field.
Razack et al. discloses a beneficial cell holder comprising a PCM composite and further comprising an elastic polymer with the preferential features of being flexible/compressible (Razack, [0023, 0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the elastic body containing a phase change material as taught in Razack et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known material to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a reference not previously applied Herron et al. (US 20210098759 A1), in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument and the combination of references teaches all of the limitations of amended claim 1.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Darlix et al. (US 20210399355 A1), which discloses a battery module comprising a plurality of cells and a casing comprising one or more cell-containing layers configured to house the cells is provided.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights