DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the application filed 07/24/2023 which claims 1-22 have been presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 07/24/2023; 07/03/2024; 01/21/2025; and 09/24/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claim 10, substitute “a first circuit board” with – the first circuit board – (see line 2).
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to since they are dependent upon an objected claim
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 6, 7, and 9-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitations "the first elastic abutting electrode"; “the first elastic abutting electrodes”; “the second elastic abutting electrode”; and “the second elastic abutting electrodes”. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the first elastic abutting electrodes"; and “the second elastic abutting electrodes”. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first elastic abutting electrode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first elastic abutting electrode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first elastic abutting electrode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first elastic abutting electrode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the second elastic abutting electrode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the second elastic abutting electrode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the second elastic abutting electrode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the second elastic abutting electrode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the first elastic abutting electrode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the second elastic abutting electrode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Larsen (US 2007/0275299).
Re claims 1-4, Larsen discloses a holder component (100), comprising:
a holder (see figs. 1A, 1B) configured to accommodate a battery core (101), the battery core comprising a first end and a second end (see figs. 1A, 1B);
a conductive structure (dual contact assemblies 110) arranged on the holder, the conductive structure extending from the first end of the battery core to the second end of the battery core, the conductive structure comprising at least two first elastic abutting electrodes (112a, 114a) located at the first end of the battery core and at least two second elastic abutting electrodes (112b, 114b) located at the second end of the battery core (see figs. 1A-3);
a bottom wall (120), wherein the conductive structure (110) is arranged on the bottom wall and is integrally formed with the bottom wall (see figs. 1A, 1B);
wherein the conductive structure (110) is integrally formed on the surface of the bottom wall (see figs. 1A, 1B); and
wherein the battery core (101) comprises the first end and the second end extending along a length direction of the battery core (see fig. 1B).
Re claim 5, Larsen further discloses wherein the conductive structure comprises at least one conductive member (710) comprising an elongated conductive connection portion (778), and wherein an entire length of the conductive connection portion is integrally formed on the holder (see figs. 7A, 7B).
Re claim 6, Larsen further discloses wherein the conductive structure comprises at least two conductive members (110a, 110b), wherein a first elastic abutting electrode (112a, 112b) is arranged on each of the at least two conductive members (110a, 110b), wherein the first elastic abutting electrodes (112a, 112b) of the at least two conductive members (110a, 110b) extend toward the first end of the battery core (101), and/or wherein a second elastic abutting electrode (114a, 114b) is arranged on each of the at least two conductive members (110a, 110b), and wherein the second elastic abutting electrodes (114a, 114b) of the at least two conductive members (110a, 110b) extend toward the second end of the battery core. (see figs. 1A-3)
Re claim 7, Larsen further discloses wherein first elastic abutting electrodes (112a, 112b) of the at least two conductive members (110a, 110b) are mirror-symmetrically arranged, and/or wherein second elastic abutting electrodes (114a, 114b) of the at least two conductive members (110a, 110b) are mirror-symmetrically arranged. (see figs. 1A-3)
Re claim 8, Larsen further discloses an accommodation cavity configured to accommodate the battery core, and wherein the conductive connection portion is arranged in the first accommodation cavity (see figs. 1A, 1B, 7A, 7B).
Re claim 9, Larsen further discloses wherein the first elastic abutting electrodes (112a, 112b) elastically abuts against a circuit board (121) arranged on the holder (figs. 1A, 1B, 3; para. 0023).
Re claims 17 and 18, Larsen further discloses wherein a first support and positioning structure (122) that supports and positions the first elastic abutting electrode (112a, 112b) is arranged on the holder; and wherein a second support and positioning structure (124) that supports and positions the second elastic abutting electrode (114a, 114b) is arranged on the holder (figs. 1A, 1B, 3; para. 0023).
Re claim 19, Larsen further discloses wherein the conductive structure is provided with a through hole that cooperates with the holder (para. 0023).
Re claim 20, Larsen further discloses wherein the conductive structure is in a shape of a sheet, and wherein a thickness direction of the conductive structure is consistent with a thickness direction of the holder (see figs. 1A, 1B).
Re claim 21, Larsen further discloses a power supply component, comprising: the holder component of claim 1, the circuit board being arranged on the holder component, wherein the conductive structure on the holder component is conductively connected to the circuit board (paras. 0014-0015).
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(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsen.
Larsen teaches the claimed invention except for an electronic vaporization device comprising the power supply component of claim 21; and a vaporizer connected to the power supply component.
Since Larsen discloses that the battery receptacle may be useful in many electronic devices, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the battery receptacle in an electronic vaporization device in order to eliminate improper installation of a battery (see para. 0014).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to APRIL A TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 9am-6pm.
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, STEVEN S PAIK can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/APRIL A TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2876
/EDWYN LABAZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights