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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group 1: Claims 1-19 and Species B: claims 3, 6, and 7 in the reply filed on 1/13/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the terms:
Apple in Para. 36
Google in Para. 36
Microsoft in Para. 36
Mozilla in Para. 36
JavaScript in Para. 40
Lenovo in Para. 45
Bluetooth in Para. 51
which are trade name(s) or mark(s) used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The chemical compounds H2O in Para. 73 of the instant specification and PbO2, H2SO4, and H2O in Para. 108 of the instant specification should be written as H2O, PbO2, H2SO4, and H2O respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 5 of claim 1 recites “material.” It is advised to amend the claim recitation to read “a material.”
Line 6 of claim 1 recites “chemical reaction.” It is advised to amend the claim recitation to read “a chemical reaction.”
Line 6 of claim 1 recites “matter.” Considering the breadth of this term that may read on any substance such as electrolytes, gases, solids, or other species, it is advised to amend to “an electrolyte” which is encompassed in the instant specification such as paragraph 84.
Line 2 of claim 15 recites “material.” It is advised to amend the claim recitation to read “a material.”
Line 2 of claim 15 recites “chemical reaction.” It is advised to amend the claim recitation to read “a chemical reaction.”
Line 3 of claim 15 recites “matter.” Considering the breadth of this term that may read on any substance such as electrolytes, gases, solids, or other species, it is advised to amend to “an electrolyte” which is encompassed in the instant specification such as paragraph 84.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 recites “comprising the device” in line 1, however claim 3, of which claim 4 is dependent upon, already recites “a device” in line 2. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1 of copending Application No. 18/320,902 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent application recites all limitations except one that is recited in the patent applicant’s specification and would be obvious to incorporate into the claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of U.S Patent Application No. 18/320,902, they claim essentially the same subject matter of:
An apparatus, comprising:
a battery, the battery comprising:
at least one battery cell; and
a casing housing the at least one battery cell;
and material configured to dissolve based on chemical interaction with matter from the at least one battery cell.
Claim 1 of ‘902 fails to explicitly teach the apparatus further comprising a fuse, the fuse comprising material configured to dissolve based on chemical interaction with matter from the at least one battery cell.
However, Para. 33-34 and 96 of ‘902 teaches the material that is configured to dissolve based on interaction with matter from the at least one battery cell is a fuse. The same Fig. 1-17b are taught which include the fuse in Fig. 2-6b. Para. 34 of ‘902 teaches the material may be incorporated into a fuse that blows when the material dissolves, breaking a current path and rendering the battery inoperable for safety in Para. 32.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of U.S Patent Application No. 18/320,902 to include that the fuse comprises the material considering its own specification notes the material may be incorporated into a fuse that blows when the material dissolves, breaking a current path and rendering the battery inoperable for safety in Para. 32 and 34.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Long et al. (CN 204668383 U).
Regarding claim 1, Long et al. teaches an apparatus (see e.g. battery pack in Para. 29 and Fig. 1), comprising:
a battery (see e.g. unit cell 1 in Para. 29 and Fig. 1), the battery comprising:
at least one battery cell (see e.g. the interior of a plurality of unit cells 1 in Para. 29 and Fig. 1); and
a casing housing the at least one battery cell (see e.g. exterior of unit cell 1 that make up a housing in Fig. 1);
the apparatus further comprising a fuse (see e.g. fuse 2 in Para. 29-30 and Fig. 1), the fuse comprising material (see e.g. convex parts 21 of fuse 2) configured to dissolve based on chemical interaction (see e.g. chemical reaction in Para. 40 and considering the fuse material of aluminum as later claimed in dependent claim 13 is noted in Para. 40 of Long et al. and the matter of sulfuric acid as later claimed in dependent claim 14 is noted in Para. 39 of Long et al., one would expect the aluminum fuse to dissolve in the sulfuric acid of Long et al., considering Long et al. meets all compositional requirements of the claimed reaction and because the phrase chemical reaction is noted in Para. 40 of Long et al.) with matter (see e.g. fluxing filler such as sulfuric acid in para. 39-40) from the at least one battery cell (see e.g. the fluxing component and fluxing filler of Para. 39 of which may be reasonable considered part of the one battery cell set up barring any claim limitation reciting the physical location).
Regarding claim 3, Long et al. teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein based on the chemical interaction the fuse blows to break a current path between the battery and a device in which the battery is disposed (see e.g. mobile device in Para. 27. The fuse would be reasonable capable of performing this function considering the purpose is of the fuse is to cut off the circuit including the battery cell upon a current threshold being reached in Para. 27 and 29. The fuse is connected to the unit cell 1 and with the rest of the battery pack in Para. 29 of which powers the mobile device in Para. 27).
Regarding claim 4, Long et al. teaches the apparatus of Claim 3, comprising the device (see e.g. mobile device in Para. 27).
Regarding claim 6, Long et al. teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the fuse is disposed external to the casing (see e.g. exterior of unit cells that make up a housing in Fig. 1 and the fuse 2 in Fig. 1 that is disposed external to it).
Regarding claim 13, Long et al. teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the material comprises aluminum (see e.g. fuse 2 is made by metal such as aluminum in Para. 40).
Regarding claim 14, Long et al. teaches the apparatus of Claim 13, wherein the matter comprises sulfuric acid (see e.g. fluxing filler in the pouch may be made of sulfuric (sulphuric) acid in Para. 39).
Regarding claim 15, Long et al. teaches an apparatus (see e.g. battery pack in Para. 29 and Fig. 1), comprising:
a fuse (see e.g. fuse 2 in Para. 29-30 and Fig. 1), the fuse comprising material (see e.g. convex parts 21 of fuse 2) configured to dissolve based on chemical interaction (see e.g. chemical reaction in Para. 40 and considering the fuse material of aluminum as later claimed in dependent claim 13 is noted in Para. 40 of Long et al. and the matter of sulfuric acid as later claimed in dependent claim 14 is noted in Para. 39 of Long et al., one would expect the aluminum fuse to dissolve in the sulfuric acid of Long et al., considering Long et al. meets all compositional requirements of the claimed reaction and because the phrase chemical reaction is noted in Para. 40 of Long et al.) with matter (see e.g. fluxing filler such as sulfuric acid in para. 39-40) from the at least one battery cell (see e.g. the fluxing component and fluxing filler of Para. 39 may be reasonable considered part of the one battery cell set up barring any claim limitation reciting the physical location).
Regarding claim 16, Long et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the material comprises aluminum (see e.g. fuse 2 is made by metal such as aluminum in Para. 40).
Regarding claim 17, Long et al. teaches the apparatus of Claim 16, wherein the matter comprises sulfuric acid (see e.g. fluxing filler in the pouch may be made of sulfuric (sulphuric) acid in Para. 39).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (CN 204668383 U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 2026/0296947 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Long et al. teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, comprising a device that houses the battery (see e.g. mobile device in Para. 27 comprising battery pack that would comprises a plurality of unit cells in Para. 27-29)
Long et al. fails to explicitly teach the fuse being disposed in the device but not on the battery.
However, Matsumoto et al. teaches a fuse bracket mounted on a battery directly attaching a fuse unit in order to support the battery without having to modify a structure of an existing battery in Para. 14-15.
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 the battery fuse of Long et al. to incorporate a fuse bracket mounted on a battery and holding the fuse unit, as taught by Matsumoto et al., for the benefit of supporting the battery without having to modify a structure of an existing battery as noted in Para. 14-15 of Matsumoto et al..
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (CN 204668383 U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huss et al. (US 2011/0175699 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Long et al. teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, and an
apparatus (see e.g. battery pack in Para. 29 and Fig. 1), comprising: a fuse capable of being blown (see e.g. purpose is to cut off the circuit via the fuse upon a current threshold being reached in Para. 27 and 29).
Long et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the apparatus is configured to provide a notification responsive to the fuse being blown.
However, Huss et al. teaches notification via LED and/or remote sensing apparatus to permit indication of a “blown” fuse in the abstract to determine whether a fuse has been blown without having to visually inspect the fuse within casing in Para. 13.
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 the fuse of Long et al. to include notification of a blown fuse via LED and/or remote sensing capabilities, as taught by Huss et al., in order to have the benefit of being alerted when a fuse is blown without having to visually inspect the fuse, especially when it’s under casing, as noted in Para. 13 of Huss et al..
Regarding claim 9, Long et al. in view of Huss et al. teaches the apparatus of Claim 8, wherein the notification comprises a light emitting diode (LED) on the battery no longer emitting light, the LED emitting light prior to the fuse being blown (see e.g. combination of references of Long et al. in view of Huss et al. in the rejection of claim 8. Long et al. teaches battery by unit cells 1 in Para. 29 and Fig. 1 and fuse by fuse 2 in Para. 29-30 and Fig. 1. Huss et al. teaches notification of blown fuse by LED light turning off when the fuse breaks in Para. 13, 16, and 55).
Regarding claim 10, Long et al. in view of Huss et al. teaches the apparatus of Claim 8, wherein the notification comprises a graphical element presented on a display of a device in which the battery is disposed (see e.g. combination of references of Long et al. in view of Huss et al. in the rejection of claim 8. Long et al. teaches battery by unit cells 1 in Para. 29 and Fig. 1, mobile device in Para. 27, and fuse by fuse 2 in Para. 29-30 and Fig. 1. Huss et al. teaches notification of blown fuse by a wiring diagram pointing out the blown fuse on a display in Para. 221-224 that may be integrated into the device such as smartphones in Para. 112).
Regarding claim 11, Long et al. in view of Huss et al. teaches the apparatus of Claim 8, wherein the notification comprises audio indicating that the fuse has blown (see e.g. combination of references of Long et al. in view of Huss et al. in the rejection of claim 8. Long et al. teaches battery by unit cells 1 in Para. 29 and Fig. 1 and fuse by fuse 2 in Para. 29-30 and Fig. 1. Huss et al. teaches notification of blown fuse that may be an audio indictor in Para. 13, 16, and 104).
Regarding claim 12, Long et al. in view of Huss et al. teaches the apparatus of
Claim 8, wherein the notification comprises illuminating a light emitting diode (LED), the LED not emitting light prior to the fuse being blown, the LED not forming part of a computer monitor (see e.g. combination of references of Long et al. in view of Huss et al. in the rejection of claim 8. Long et al. teaches battery by unit cells 1 in Para. 29 and Fig. 1 and fuse by fuse 2 in Para. 29-30 and Fig. 1. Huss et al. teaches notification of blown fuse that may when an LED light turns on when the fuse breaks in Para. 13, 16, and 54. Based upon a visual indictor of an LED, the LED is not physically part of a computer monitor and may just be a light emitting diode as noted in Para. 104.).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (CN 204668383 U) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 206610887 U).
Regarding claim 18, Long et al. teaches the apparatus of Claim 15, and a fuse (see e.g. fuse 2 in Para. 29-30 and Fig. 1), the fuse comprising material (see e.g. convex parts 21 of fuse 2). Long et al. teaches the thickness of the convex part 21 of the fuse 2 may be selected to be smaller than the thickness of the rest of the fuse 2 based on the circuit maximum current permitted by the material and fuse in Para. 36.
Long et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the material has a thickness between 10 microns and 100 microns.
However, Liu teaches a spirally bent aluminum fuse for a battery that is 50 to 60 microns in thickness so that the fuse has good ductility, avoid the fuse to break or fall off upon any vibration as noted in Para. 74.
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 the fuse of Long et al. to be spirally bent and 50 to 60 microns in thickness, as taught by, to improve the fuse ductility and limit breaking or falling off upon battery vibration as noted in Para. 74 of Liu.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 18, while the prior art of record of Long et al. (CN 204668383 U) teaches a similar fuse (as seen in the rejection above), Long et al. fails to teach or suggest a fuse comprising material as defined in dependent claim 18. Thus, dependent claim 18 distinguishes from the prior art as whole in requiring:
“wherein the material comprises: nylon and/or nitrite in a first layer of the material, aluminum in a second layer of the material, a substance in a third layer of the material, and aluminum in a fourth layer of the material; wherein the first, second, third, and fourth layers are different from each other, the first layer being an outer layer, the second layer being adjacent to and between the first and third layers, the third layer being adjacent to and between the second and fourth layers, the fourth layer being both adjacent to the third layer and spaced from the second layer by the third layer, the substance comprising one or more of: nylon, nitrite, cellulose.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2014/0011077 teaches a fuse breaking down via a chemical reaction of electrolyte
US 2019/0066953 A1 teaches a dissolvable fuse element
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J METZGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (1st week) or Monday - Friday (2nd week) 7:30am-5:00am - 9-day biweekly schedule.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/KATHERINE J METZGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
04/16/2026
Prosecution Insights