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 statement (IDS) submitted 12/10/2025 was received and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted 07/25/2023 were received and are approved by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (U.S. 20220336903).
With respect to claim 1, Yoon discloses a battery pack (300) for powering an outdoor moving device (vehicle) (Fig. 1, [0022]), comprising:
a housing (310) configured to mount to the outdoor moving device (vehicle) and supported by the outdoor moving device (vehicle) (if it’s used within a vehicle and has a handle on top for placement (Fig. 1), the pack will inherently be mounted on and support by the vehicle); and
a cell module (battery module) (Fig. 2 and 4) mounted in the housing (310) and comprising a plurality of cells (100 – secondary batteries) (Fig. 2);
wherein each one of the plurality of cells (100) is cylindrical (Fig. 2).
Yoon does not disclose that a diameter of the each one of the plurality of cells is greater than or equal to 3 cm. However, applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, a battery cell would not operate differently based on differences in diameter. Therefore, the recited dimension is not patentable.
Claims 2-5 all attempt to limit the battery pack by reciting relative dimensions including the diameter of the cells, the length of the cells, the ratio of the length of the cell to a width of the battery pack, and the weight of the battery pack. Applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, a battery pack would not operate differently based on differences in cell diameter, cell length, the ratio of cell length to pack width, or the weight of the pack. Therefore the recited dimensions are not patentable.
Claims 6-7 attempt to limit the battery pack by reciting power and current requirements of the battery pack. However, voltage and amplitude are result-effective variables i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result such as electrical requirements to power a motor, turn on a light, etc. Applicant is therefore reminded that the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 ("The same constricted analysis led the Court of Appeals to conclude, in error, that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘[o]bvious to try.’ ... When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103."). The amount of power or current required is a result of market demand, and therefore, it would be an obvious design variation to try to adjust the voltage or current generated within the pack to meet the market demands.
With respect to claim 9, Yoon discloses the cell module further comprises a bracket (217 and 219 – first and second case), and the bracket (217 and 219) comprises a support structure (H1 – hollow) supporting the plurality of cells (100) (Fig. 2) and further comprises a guide structure (214 – guide protrusion portion) guiding the cell module to be mounted in the housing (310) (Fig. 4, [0085]).
With respect to claim 10, Yoon discloses the guide structure (214) is a guide rib (Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 11, Yoon discloses the guide structure (214) is a guide rib (Fig. 6) and the receiving structure (313) of the housing (310) is a groove (H2 guide groove) (Fig. 5) ([0085]). However, applicant is reminded that a rearrangement of parts is unpatentable unless the rearrangement modifies the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). In the instant case, rearranging the connection system between the housing and the bracket so that the bracket has a groove and the housing has a rib projection would not change the manner in which the bracket is slidably connected to the housing. Therefore, the claimed configuration is unpatentable.
With respect to claim 12, Yoon discloses the guide structure (214) is parallel to a mounting direction of the cell module (Figs. 2 and 4).
With respect to claim 13, Yoon discloses the guide structure (214) is perpendicular to a length direction of the each one of the plurality of cells (100) (Figs. 2 and 4).
With respect to claim 14, Yoon discloses the cell module further comprises a plurality of connection pole pieces (220 – busbar) (Fig. 2), each one of the plurality of connection pole pieces (220) is connected to at least two ones of the plurality of cells (100) (Fig. 4), the each one of the plurality of connection pole pieces (220) is connected to the at least two ones of the plurality of cells (100) through welding ([0068]).
Yoon does not disclose a ratio of a welding area to a surface area of the each one of the plurality of connection pole pieces is higher than or equal to 0.1. However, applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, a battery cell would not operate differently within a battery pack based on the ratio of a weld area to a surface area of the connection pole pieces (busbars). Therefore, the recited dimension is not patentable.
Claim 15 attempts to limit the battery pack based on a welding path of the weld connecting the connection pole pieces (busbars) to the plurality of cells by limiting a “closed welding path,” otherwise described as welding in a path that creates a closed symbol or shape (i.e. circle, rectangle, polygon, etc.). Applicant is reminded that the configuration of a claimed part is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent to persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed part is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). In the instant case, there is no evidence that the shape of the weld imparts significant differences to the battery pack. Therefore, the limitation is not patentable.
With respect to claim 16, Yoon discloses an outdoor moving device (vehicle) ([0022]), comprising:
a battery compartment and a battery pack (300) accommodated in the battery compartment (inherently present as a vehicle comprising a battery would need a place to store said battery) (Fig. 1);
wherein the battery pack (300) comprises: a housing (310) configured to mount to the battery compartment and supported by the battery compartment (again, if it’s used within a vehicle battery compartment and has a handle on top for placement (Fig. 1), the pack will inherently be mounted on and support by the vehicle’s battery compartment); and
a cell module mounted in the housing (310) and comprising a plurality of cells (100) (Fig. 2).
Yoon does not disclose a diameter of each one of the plurality of cells is greater than or equal to 4 cm. However, applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, a battery cell would not operate differently based on differences in diameter. Therefore, the recited dimension is not patentable.
With respect to claim 17, Yoon discloses a battery pack (300) for powering an electric device ([0021]), comprising:
a housing (310) configured to mount to the electric device and supported by the electric device (again, if it’s used within an electronic device and has a handle on top for placement (Fig. 1), the pack will inherently be mounted on and support by the electronic device);
a cell module comprising a plurality of cells (100) and disposed in the housing (310) (Fig. 2); and
a terminal assembly (223 – external terminals) electrically connected to the plurality of cells (100) and used for electrically connecting the battery pack to the electric device (Fig. 2; [0070]).
Yoon does not disclose a diameter of each one of the plurality of cells is greater than or equal to 3 cm, and a ratio of the diameter of the each one of the plurality of cells to a length of the each one of the plurality of cells is higher than or equal to 0.5. However, applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, a battery cell would not operate differently based on differences in diameter or a ratio of the cell diameter to a length of the cells. Therefore, the recited dimensions are not patentable.
Claim 18 attempts to limit the battery pack based on the capacity of the battery pack and a ratio of the capacity to the weight of the battery pack. It has already been established (see rejection of claim 5) that the weight of the battery pack is not a patentable feature. The capacity of a battery pack is a result-effective variable i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result such as electrical storage requirements to power a motor, turn on a light, etc. Applicant is therefore reminded that the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 ("The same constricted analysis led the Court of Appeals to conclude, in error, that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘[o]bvious to try.’ ... When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103."). The amount of electrical energy storage required is a result of market demand, and therefore, it would be an obvious design variation to try to adjust the capacity within the pack to meet the market demands.
With respect to claim 20, Yoon discloses a handle disposed on the housing (310) and gripped by a user (Fig. 1).
Yoon does not disclose a ratio of a length of the handle to a length of the battery pack in an extension direction of the handle is higher than or equal to 0.6. However, applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, a handle would not operate differently in a battery pack based on a ratio of its length to a length of the pack in the extension direction of the handle. Therefore, the recited dimensions are not patentable.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Ota et al. (U.S. 20110197389).
With respect to claims 8 and 19, Yoon discloses a battery pack (300) (Fig. 1), but discloses a battery pack which utilizes lithium secondary batteries ([0003]), and does not disclose the use of lithium iron phosphate cells.
Ota discloses a battery pack comprising lithium-ion cells ([0011]) but teaches the battery pack is not limited by cell type, and would still function using lithium iron phosphate cells ([0091]). Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness has been provided based on the rationale using a simple substitution of one known element (lithium-ion cells) for another (lithium iron phosphate cells) to obtain a predictable result (MPEP 2143.I.B.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to substitute the lithium cells disclosed by Yoon for lithium iron phosphate cells as taught by Ota as a simple substitution to obtain a predictable result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights