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 without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 07/01/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-12 are withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected group.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that an information disclosure statement (IDS) was not included in the electronic file wrapper of the instant application. Applicant is reminded of the duty to disclose information material to patentability as defined by 37 C.F.R. 1.56 (also see MPEP 2001).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Please amend “the length” of the cylindrical inner cavity to “a length” in line 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the circular base”, “the inner wall”, and “the curved, electrically conductive cathode surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 2-10 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon indefinite claim 1.
Claim 1 is further indefinite as the claim recites “the curved, electrically conductive cathode surface of the cylindrical inner cavity”. The claim requires that the connector comprises a nonconductive outer shell and a cylindrical inner cavity. The drawings and specification make it clear the inner cavity is formed by the nonconductive outer shell, thus the surfaces of the inner cavity would be non-conductive. However, the claim requires an “electrically conductive cathode surface of the cylindrical inner cavity”. It is unclear how the inner cavity can have a wall that is both conductive and nonconductive. It appears, based upon the instant specification Para. 0025 that the claim should have recited the curve, electrically conductive cathode surface “of the battery cell’s cylinder wall”. For purposes of compact prosecution the claim will be interpreted to recite that the negative terminal connects to the curved, electrically conductive cathode surface of the “battery cell’s” cylinder wall rather than the “inner cavity” as this appears to be the applicant’s intent. Claims 2-10 are further rejected by virtue of their dependence upon indefinite claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “to substantially prevent an anode and a cathode of the single-ended cylindrical battery cell connector from making a simultaneous connection to either the positive terminal or the negative terminal”. It is unclear how a connector can have an anode and a cathode (i.e., where redox reactions occur). It appears based upon Para. 0022 of the instant specification that the claim intended to recite the anode or the cathode “of the battery cell” rather than the “connector” and thus the claim will be interpreted as such.
Claim 9 recites “normal operation”, which is a relative term. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what constitutes “normal operation” in order to properly determine the scope of the instant claim.
Claim 10 recites “sufficiently loose”, “normal operation”, and “substantially steep angle”, all of which are relative terms. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how loose is “sufficiently loose”, what constitutes “normal operation”, and how much of an angle would be considered a “substantially steep angle” in order to properly determine the scope of the instant claim.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 20090017674 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a single-ended cylindrical battery cell connector (battery connector 1 that has one open end [abstract; Fig. 1]) comprising:
A nonconductive outer shell (dielectric housing 2 [Para. 0019; Fig. 1]);
A cylindrical inner cavity (a cylindrical receiving cavity suitable for accommodating a battery (not labeled) [Para. 0019; Fig. 1]);
A positive terminal located near the circular base of the cylindrical inner cavity positioned parallel to the length of the cylindrical inner cavity (spring arm 42 is positioned near the base of the inner cavity and parallel to the length of the inner cavity [Para. 0020; Figs. 1-2]);
A negative terminal located near the inner wall of the cylindrical inner cavity positioned perpendicular to the length of the cylindrical inner cavity (holding section 36 and/or elastic connecting section 43 that is located near the inner wall of the inner cavity and is perpendicular to the length of the cavity [Para. 0021; Figs. 1-2]);
A positive connector lead (soldering section 44 [Para. 0020; Figs. 1-4]);
A negative connector lead (soldering section 32 [Para. 0021; Figs. 1-4]);
Wherein the cylindrical inner cavity is open-ended on one side (the top of the cavity is open forming the receiving cavity for accommodating a battery 5 [Para. 0019]).
The limitations “such that when in use, the negative terminal connects to the curved, elastically conductive cathode surface of the battery cell’s cylinder wall" and “such that a cylindrical battery cell having a cylinder base diameter less than its cylinder height can be inserted into the cylindrical inner cavity” are functional and/or intended use limitations. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does or how it is used [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the “cylindrical battery cell connector” of claim 1 is not further limited by the structure of the battery that is connected (i.e., how the connector is used). Examiner notes, however, that Chen expressly teaches wherein the second conductive contact 3 that includes the holding section 36 and connecting section 34 makes contact with the top face of the battery [Para. 0021] and thus is configured to and capable of meeting the intended use limitation of “connecting to the curved, elastically conductive cathode surface of the battery cell’s cylinder wall”. Examiner further notes that Chen expressly teaches wherein the cylindrical cavity is suitable for accommodating “a cylindrical battery therein” [Para. 0009; Claims 1 and 9] and thus is also configured to receive a cylindrical battery cell having a cylinder base diameter less than its cylinder height.
Regarding claim 2, Chen further discloses wherein the nonconductive outer shell has a diameter and length sufficient to substantially prevent an anode and a cathode of the single-ended cylindrical battery cell connector from making a simultaneous connection to either the positive terminal or the negative terminal, such that an electrical short is substantially prevented (the spring arm 42 and the holding section 36/connection section 43 are separated such that the inserted battery would not short circuit [see Fig. 2]).
Regarding claims 5-6, the limitations “wherein the single-ended cylindrical battery cell connector is a surface-mountable device suitable for mounting on a printed circuit board” and “wherein the single-ended cylindrical battery cell connector is suitable for through-hole reflow mounting on a printed circuit board” are functional and/or intended use limitations. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does or how it is used [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the connector itself is not further limited by how it is mounted on a substrate. However, Chen expressly teaches wherein the connector comprises a soldering section 44 and a second soldering section 32 and that battery connectors are electrically connected with a mother board [Paras. 0006, 0020-0021] and thus absent any clear and convincing argument to the contrary the Office holds the position that the battery connector of Chen is configured to and capable of meeting the functional limitations of being surface-mountable on a printed circuit board and is suitable for reflow mounting to a printed circuit board.
Regarding claim 7, Chen further discloses wherein the positive terminal is comprised of a leaf spring (spring arm 42 is a leaf spring [Para. 0020; Fig. 1]).
Regarding claims 9-10, the limitations “wherein the cylindrical battery cell may be physically secured by inserting the cylindrical battery cell into the cylindrical battery cell connector, such that the cylindrical battery cell will not fall out of the connector during normal operating conditions” and “wherein the cylindrical battery cell remains sufficiently loose during normal operation such that it can fall out if held at a substantially steep angle” are functional and/or intended use limitations. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does or how it is used [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the connector itself is not further limited by the structure of the battery inserted into the connector, the operating conditions (i.e., normal or not normal conditions), or the angle the connector is held. Examiner notes, however, that Chen expressly teaches wherein the battery is both stably held in place [Para. 0010] and can also be ejected [Para. 0019] and thus absent any clear and convincing argument to the contrary the Office holds the position that the battery connector of Chen is configured to and capable of meeting the functional limitations of instant claims 9-10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Sanchez (US 20100315767 A1).
Regarding claims 3-4, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1 as outlined previously.
Although Chen discloses wherein the housing is a “dielectric” housing, and one skilled in the art would know that plastics and silicon-based materials are well-known examples of dielectric materials, Chen fails to expressly teach wherein the housing is comprised of “plastic” or “a silicon-based material”.
Sanchez discloses a battery cell connector [abstract] wherein the device comprises a support (i.e., housing) 2 wherein the housing is made of an electrically insulating material including, for example, thermoplastic material, polyolefin, silicon rubber, ceramic, cardboard, paper or wood [Paras. 0099, 0152].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the housing disclosed by Chen with a plastic or silicon rubber material because Sanchez teaches that these materials are suitable for forming a battery cell housing that is electrically insulating [Paras. 0099, 0152] and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Cadio (US 20170346051 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1 as outlined previously.
Chen discloses wherein the positive terminal (spring arm 42) comprises a leaf spring as shown in Figs. 1-2 and thus fails to expressly teach wherein the positive terminal is comprised of a spiral spring.
Cadio discloses a battery connecting device for retaining a battery [abstract] wherein the contact springs are generally leaf type springs but that other forms are suitable including coil type spring contacts [Para. 0047]. Cadio teaches wherein the contact springs are made of electrically conductive material in order to supply the electrical power from the batteries to the electronic device [Para. 0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the leaf spring shaped positive terminal of Chen and instead use a coil type spring (i.e., spiral spring) because Cadio teaches that both leaf spring and coil shaped terminals are effective for making an electrical connection between the battery and the electronic device for which the battery connector is installed [Para. 0047]. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved [MPEP § 2143(B)].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3176. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-4:30pm ET Mon-Thurs, 7:30am-11:30pm Fri.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights