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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Aoki et al (JP 2007-027011) in view of Oh et al. (US 2023/0198045).
Regarding claim 1, Aoki discloses a power supply device comprising a plurality of secondary battery cells, each of the plurality of secondary battery cells having a first end surface, a second end surface opposite to the first end surface, and a side surface connected to the first end surface and the second end surface, each of the plurality of secondary battery cells including an electrode (All Figs). Although Aoki discloses an electrode as claimed, Aoki fails to explicitly disclose “positive” electrode and “negative” electrode both on the first end surface of each of the plurality of secondary battery cells. However, Aoki discloses a projecting electrode (17) (Fig. 5-6, [0032-0034]). One of ordinary skill in the art would immediately envisage that the “convex” electrode would correspond to the claimed “positive” electrode and the immediate area surrounding the convex electrode would correspond to the claimed “negative” electrode. It is very well known in the battery art that positive electrode terminal side comprises a projection and a negative electrode corresponds to a flat smooth portion.
Furthermore, Aoki discloses that the safety valve can be present on either ends of surface of the secondary battery cells (All Figs: Figs. 1-4 vs. Fig. 5-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the safety valve is included with the positive electrode as Aoki discloses that they are functionally equivalent and suitable. Additionally, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to use a safety valve on a positive electrode. One of ordinary skill in the art would be well aware that the safety valve can be positioned any sides. Thus, choice of a positive electrode to include a safety valve given few option alternatives would be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, Aoki discloses a battery holder holding the plurality of secondary battery cells upright in parallel to one another such that the positive electrode on the one end surface of each of the plurality of second battery cells is directed vertically downward (All Figs), a housing (2) having a bottom surface, a sot surface, and an inner space which accommodates the battery holder therein (All Figs), wherein the battery holder retains the positive electrode of each of the plurality of secondary battery cells spaced apart from the bottom surface across a first space (5) (Fig. 5-6).
Aoki is silent comprising lead plate fixed at the positive electrode and a negative electrode as presently claimed.
Oh discloses a lead plate as claimed [0025] set forth in the annotated Fig. 16 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
613
897
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Oh Figure 16: Bus bar with positive (246) and negative (248) electrode portions coupled to positive (175) and negative (170) electrodes on cell battery (150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aoki’s power supply device to include lead plates on both the negative and positive electrodes as claimed, since Oh discloses that this is a known configuration for electrical connection as well as being easy to establish electrical connection [0055].
Regarding claim 2, Please see Figs. 5-6.
Regarding claim 3, Aoki discloses silicon resin (27), which corresponds to the claimed heat-conductive layer (Fig. 6) [0046].
Regarding claim 4, Aoki discloses that the heat-conductive layer (27) has a sheet shape (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Aoki discloses the battery holder includes a raising part (3) provided on a surface of the battery holder facing the bottom surface of the housing, the raising part defining the first space (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Aoki in view of Oh discloses lead plate is a sheet (Fig. 6), however, fails to disclose it is of metal. However, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to choose to use metal. One of ordinary skill in the art would be well aware that any material can be either metal or nonmetal. Thus, choice of a metal given only two alternatives would be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, it is known in the art that lead plate would be understood as electrically conductive and therefore, metal.
Regarding the limitation “etched”, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”, (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113).
Regarding claims 8-9, Aoki fails to explicitly disclose that the battery holder includes a partitioning wall as claimed and that the battery holder is divided into a plurality of sub-holders as claimed.
Oh discloses the battery holder is divided into a plurality of sub-holders with partitioning wall and the middle portion of the secondary battery is exposed from the battery holder (All Figs). Although Oh fails to explicitly disclose that the partitioning wall is made of resin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the material to be of resin with reasonable expectation of success. Choice of a resin material would be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art absence of evidence to the criticality of the resin material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aoki’s battery holder to include a resin partition wall and be divided into plurality of sub-holders as claimed, since Oh discloses that this will further hold and secure the plurality of cylindrical batteries.
Regarding claim 10, Aoki discloses cylindrical outer can (All Figs).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)272-1291. 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights