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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Sun reference still anticipates at least claim 14 and the rejection of claim 1 in view of Fauteux is now in obviousness-type form as necessitated by amendment.
Applicant asserts in paragraph 5 on page 5 of the Remarks that Fauteux teaches packaging techniques reliant upon the positioning of the tabs. While this may be true, rearranging the location of the tabs to be on the same side is not grounds for patentability. Fauteux could still operate with tabs on the same side and motivation is present to make this modification.
Applicant asserts in paragraph 3 of page 6 that the housing of Sun is rigid. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sun discloses that the batteries are pouch-type batteries. Pouch-type batteries are by definition semi-flexible.
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)(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 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sun (US 2023/0268601 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Sun discloses an apparatus comprising: a housing 211 at least partially defining an interior volume therein (paragraph 64); a docking interface with a power device (paragraph 55); and a cell pack assembly 22 at least partially positioned within the interior volume (see Figure 3), the cell pack assembly including: a plurality of battery cells 20 arranged in a stack along a stack axis, wherein each battery cell defines a battery cell height T2 parallel to the stack axis, a plurality of intermediate members 101 positioned between adjacent battery cells (paragraph 70), wherein each intermediate member defines an intermediate member height T2 parallel to the stack axis, and wherein the ratio of battery cell height to intermediate member height is at least 3:1 because 0.04≤T1/T2≤2 (paragraph 15). Sun discloses that the cells are pouch-style battery cells (paragraph 52) with positive electrode sheets, negative electrode sheets and separators (paragraph 54) and a plurality of cells (paragraph 6). A pouch-style battery is by definition semi-flexible.
Regarding claim 15, Sun discloses that 0.04≤T1/T2≤2 (paragraph 15) which encompasses a ratio of battery cell height T2 to intermediate member height T1 is at least 7:1.
Regarding claim 16, Sun discloses that each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells has the same battery cell height T2 (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 17, Sun discloses that each intermediate member of the plurality of intermediate members has the same intermediate member height T1 (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 18, Sun discloses that each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells includes a body portion, an anode extending from the body portion, and a cathode extending from the body portion (paragraph 54), and wherein the body portion forms a rectangular-prism shape (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 19, Sun discloses that at least one of the intermediate members forms a rectangular-prism shape (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 20, Sun discloses that the terminals are located on the same side of the cells (see Figure 3).
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fauteux (US 2016/0141728 A1) in view of Matsuoka (US 2020/0091554 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fauteux discloses an apparatus comprising: a housing 11 at least partially defining an interior volume therein and a docking interface 12 (paragraph 23); and a cell pack assembly 40 at least partially positioned within the interior volume, the cell pack assembly 40 including: a plurality of battery cells 30, wherein each battery cell includes a body, an anode extending from the body, and a cathode extending from the body (paragraph 24), wherein the cell pack assembly defines cell packing volume in the shape of a rectangular-prism that completely encompasses each body portion of the plurality of cells (see Figure 9), and wherein the cell pack assembly is packaged such that the combined volume of the body portions of each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells occupies no less than 80% of the cell packing volume (paragraph 32). Fauteux discloses that the battery cells are pouch-style (paragraph 24) but does not disclose their terminals are on the same edge. Matsuoka—in an invention for a stack of pouch-type batteries with docking interface—discloses tabs 130 and 140 that extend from the cells on the same edge (see Figure 1). Matsuoka discloses that the tabs are on the same side so they can be connected and monitored on the same side (see Figure 3(b)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to rearrangements the tabs of Fauteux to be on the same edge if that was helpful for orientation as disclosed in Matsuoka. While Fauteux is explicit in teaching that the tabs are oriented on opposite sides, omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. See MPEP 2144.04 II A. Orienting the tabs on the same side has benefit, as well. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Fauteux discloses that the fill ratio is over 80% (paragraph 32) which encompasses the claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 4-7, Fauteux discloses at least five cells of the same dimensions and rectangular construction (see Figure 9).
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 IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights