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
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, 2 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suematsu (US 2024/0421440).
As to claim 1, Suematsu discloses a battery pack (figure 1 #1, [0033], discussed throughout) comprising: a case (figure 1 #200, the holding unit, which also includes the end blocks #211 and #213, and the case #721, [0034], discussed throughout) comprising a plurality of engaging grooves (figure 8 #721g, insertion portion, discussed throughout); a plurality of battery cells in the case (figure 1 #100, [0034], discussed throughout); a plurality of cell bus bars electrically connecting the plurality of battery cells to each other (figure 4 #302, bus bar, discussed throughout); and one or more battery pack bus bars (figure 7 #709, side connection terminal, discussed throughout) comprising a engaging protrusions configured to be inserted into the plurality of engaging grooves of the case (figure 8 #709f, protrusion, discussed throughout), wherein the plurality of engaging protrusions are configured to be attached to or detached from the case by being inserted into or withdrawn from the engaging grooves (figures 7 and 8, discussed throughout). Suematsu is silent to a plurality of engaging protrusions. As Suematsu discloses one protraction going into one hole. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to have more than one protrusion and hole as a mere change in shape, or duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04) baring any criticality or unexpected results, as additional protrusions would provide additional points of contact.
As to claim 2, Suematsu discloses wherein, each of the plurality of engaging protrusions protrudes in a direction crossing a longitudinal direction of the battery pack bus bar toward the case (figures 7 and 8).
As to claim 22, Suematsu discloses wherein, the one or more battery pack bus bars are located on a side surface corresponding to a long side of the case (figures 1, 4, 7 and 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-21 and 23 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. Suematsu is the closest prior art of record. However, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to modify Suematsu to arrive at the structural limitation within the objected to claims.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights