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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure filed 2/20/25 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 is drawn to a battery unit for a high current power supply system. The examiner notes that this is a preamble statement reciting purpose of intended use, and does not recite structural limitations not does the intended use result in a structural difference from other battery units for other uses. Therefore, the intended use for the current level of the power supply system is not given patentable weight per MPEP 2111.023
Claim 1 is drawn to an electrode comprising a clamp. The examiner notes that, in the battery art, the term electrode is generally used to refer to the positive and negative elements within the battery unit cell, and is not as commonly used to describe external apparatus. However, in light of the specification, the claimed term “electrode” is interpreted as being drawn to the structural elements external to the battery unit casing that are used for electrical connection to the load (see, e.g., [0009]-[0010], [0030], [0044], etc. of the published specification). These elements are more commonly called terminals, but the interpretation described here is appropriate in light of the specification (MPEP 2111).
Claim 3 includes the limitation “wherein the battery unit further comprises a third leg …” While this limitation does have antecedent basis, it is ambiguous as to where the third leg is provided within the battery unit. For the purposes of expediting prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as: “wherein the clamp of the battery unit further comprises a third leg …”
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, 8-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2012/0121966).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a battery unit, or battery (100), comprising an electrode, or terminals (120, 130), comprising a clamp, or first contact spring (Figures 1-3, [0039], [0047]).
The clamp (124) of Kim comprises the structural elements of claim 1, as seen in annotated Figures 3 and 4C, below:
PNG
media_image1.png
569
1041
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim further teaches that the clamp, or spring (124), uses elasticity to form a current path ([0056]). The examiner finds that the clamp of Kim therefore has any number of elastically deformed states such as those of claim 1.
Regarding claims 8-9, Kim teaches a connector casing, or terminal body (123f), having an opening configured such that a part of a busbar (300) may be inserted via the opening, where a clearance is provided for the busbar between the opening and a space between the first and second legs (Figures 4C and 5).
As for claim 10, Kim teaches a connector, or first current collecting terminal (122), suitable to hold a busbar (300) in contact with the clamp (124) (Figure 7).
With regard to claim 11, Kim teaches a further battery unit (100) , the busbar (300) being held in contact with the clamp (124) of the further battery unit (Figure 8).
As for claim 13, it is seen in Figure 8 that the system is assembled by providing first and second battery units and a busbar, and bringing parts of the busbar into contact with the clamps of the two battery units ([0022]).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baek (US 2012/0015240).
The teachings of Kim as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Kim teaches the legs of claim 1, including protrusions, or annular portion (124a) ([0052]), but fails to teach specifically the protrusion being convex in two non-parallel sectional planes.
Baek teaches a battery unit comprising an electrode comprising a clamp, or electrode terminal (340), having first and second legs, or first (341) and second (342) base plates, and wherein a convex protrusion, or elastic portions (345, 346), are provided having any suitable shape, which includes being convex in two non-parallel sectional planes (Figures 3-4, [0051]).
Baek further teaches that the elastic portions are desirable to elastically support the electrode connection portion when it is inserted into the clamp, or accommodation groove (344) ([0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to provide elastic portions in the clamp of Kim such as suggested by Baek in order to elastically support the electrode connection portion, or busbar of Kim, when it is inserted into the clamp.
The examiner notes that the clamp of Baek is not used in the exact same configuration of Kim; however, the person having ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, and can recognize that teachings other clamps in other batteries that are also used for ensuring proper electrical connection can be used to improve clamps in generally, see MPEP 2141.03 I.
Claims 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kotter et al. (US 2019/0198846).
The teachings of Kim as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Regarding claims 3-4, Kim teaches first and second legs and transition section, but fails to teach a third leg and further transition section.
Kotter teaches a battery unit comprising an electrode comprising a clamp, or clamping unit (4), having a transition section, or web (7), and first and second legs, or clamping limbs (5, 6) (Figure 17, [0054]). Kotter teaches that the clamp (4) is fixedly clamped to a terminal pole by elastically deforming the elements discussed above ([0054]).
Kotter further teaches that the first and second legs may comprise additional legs, or two or more spring lamellae (8), arranged transversely to the transition section (7) to optimally adapt to the respective shape of the busbar, or cell connector (52), in order to be able to provide as large as possible a contact surface for the transmission of electrical current ([0012]-[0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to provide a third leg, or spring lamella, in the clamp of Kim such as suggested by Kotter in order to optimally adapt to the shape of the busbar. The examiner further finds that the optimal adaptation of Kim in view of Kotter obviates the claimed different amounts of distance.
Further regarding claim 4 and with regard to claim 6, the examiner notes that the claimed further transition sections are met by sections of the web (7) correlated to the lamellae (8) of Kotter as shown in annotated Figure 17 below:
PNG
media_image2.png
470
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that the clamp of Kotter is not used in the exact same configuration of Kim; however, the person having ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, and can recognize that teachings other clamps in other batteries that are also used for ensuring proper electrical connection can be used to improve clamps in generally, see MPEP 2141.03 I.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kotter as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Baek.
The teachings of Kim, Kotter, and Baek as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Kim in view of Kotter teaches the third leg of claim 4, including protrusions, or annular portion (124a) ([0052] of Kim) and a bead ([0014] of Kotter), but fails to teach specifically the protrusion being convex in two non-parallel sectional planes.
Baek teaches a battery unit comprising an electrode comprising a clamp, or electrode terminal (340), having first and second legs, or first (341) and second (342) base plates, and wherein a convex protrusion, or elastic portions (345, 346), are provided having any suitable shape, which includes being convex in two non-parallel sectional planes (Figures 3-4, [0051]).
Baek further teaches that the elastic portions are desirable to elastically support the electrode connection portion when it is inserted into the clamp, or accommodation groove (344) ([0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to provide elastic portions in the clamp of Kim such as suggested by Baek in order to elastically support the electrode connection portion, or busbar of Kim, when it is inserted into the clamp.
The examiner notes that the clamp of Baek is not used in the exact same configuration of Kim or Kotter; however, the person having ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, and can recognize that teachings other clamps in other batteries that are also used for ensuring proper electrical connection can be used to improve clamps in generally, see MPEP 2141.03 I.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshioka (US 2014/0248517).
The teachings of Kim as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Kim teaches the battery unit of claim 1 but fails to teach a spring clamp that at least partially grips around the clamp (124).
Yoshioka teaches an electrode comprising a clamp, or clip (19), and a spring clamp, or fitting terminal (18), which grips around the clamp (19) (Figure 2, [0032]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to use a spring such as suggested by Yoshioka to grip the clamp of Kim in order to ensure appropriate electrical connection. It has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. MPEP 2143 I A
The examiner notes that the clamp of Yoshioka is not used in the exact same configuration of Kim; however, the person having ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, and can recognize that teachings other clamps in other batteries that are also used for ensuring proper electrical connection can be used to improve clamps in generally, see MPEP 2141.03 I.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Golubkov (US 2019/0379030).
The teachings of Kim as discussed are incorporated herein.
Kim teaches a system with the battery unit as discussed above, including further battery units being electrically connected to each other (Figure 8), but fails to teach that the battery units are arranged inside a casing of the system.
Golubkov teaches a system with battery units, or battery cells (10), electrically connected to each other (Figure 2). Golubkov further teaches a casing of the system, or housing (70), for providing a gastight assembly in which a battery monitoring system is provided for improved detection of abnormal states of the battery system (Figure 3, [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to provide a casing of the system, or housing (70), such as taught by Golubkov in the system of Kim in order to provide a battery monitoring system for improved detection of abnormal states of the battery system.
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/291,026 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of ‘026 requires all of the structural limitations of instant claim 1, including the clamp having a transition section, first and second legs, and elastically deformed states.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The examiner notes that 18/291,026 has been allowed but has not been issued. When the patent issues, the double patenting rejection will become non-provisional.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights