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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicants' claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on June 29, 2021. It is noted, however, that the applicants have not filed a certified copy of Chinese application CN 202110724976.3 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “20” (see paragraphs [0040], [0046], [0047], [0049], [0055]-[0057], [0063], [0064], [0077], [0078], [0084], [0086]-[0092], [0094], [0095], [0097]-[00101], [00103], [00109]-[00111], [00114], [00116], [00127], [00128], [00138], [00140], [00142], [00149], and [00158] of the specification).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “ejection mechanism” of claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this instance, the abstract recites the legal terms “comprises” (two instances in the 1st line) and “comprise” (in the 2nd line).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “the” should be deleted before “accommodating portion” in the 7th line. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0005], 3rd line, replace “potions” with “portions”.
In paragraph [0071], 6th line, replace “210” with “211” after “compartment”.
In paragraph [00107], in the 8th and 9th lines, it is unclear what is meant by “When the battery pack 20A and the first electrical device 31 shakes hands with each other…”, and it is believed that “communicates” (or similar) should replace “shakes hands”.
In paragraph [00148], 5th line, replace “shell” with “housing” before “main body 141”.
In paragraph [00154], 19th line, replace “210” with “211” after “compartment”.
In paragraph [00160], 5th line, replace “1412” with “1421” after “first limiting surface” in the 4th line.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 12, 15, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, 2nd line, replace “potions” with “portions” after “accommodating”.
In claim 8, 1st line, replace “any one of claims 1” with “claim 1”.
In claim 12, 1st line, replace “any one of claims 1” with “claim 1”.
In claim 15, 1st line, delete one of the two “,” before “characterized”.
In claim 17, 2nd line, add “,” after “first battery cell” for clarity.
In claim 17, last line, replace “claims 1” with “claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 4. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-19 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 1 recites the limitation "the first accommodating portion" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the first accommodating portion" with "the at least one first accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one first accommodating portion" in the 3rd line of claim 1. Since claims 2-19 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second accommodating portion" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second accommodating portion" with "the at least one second accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second accommodating portion" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1. Since claims 2-19 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each the accommodating portion" in the 7th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In addition to the indefinite language “each the”, it is also unclear as to which of the accommodating portions is being referred to. Is the “accommodating portion” referring to “at least two accommodating portions (in the 2nd line of claim 1), “at least one first accommodating portion” (in the 3rd line of claim 1), or "at least one second accommodating portion" (bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1)? Correction and clarification are required. Since claims 2-19 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the same or different first electrical device" bridging the 9th and 10th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claims 2-19 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first electrical device" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the second electrical device" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 (duplicate of claim 4) recites the limitation "the second electrical device" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the power supply" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the outside" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the power supply" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the accommodating portion" bridging the 2nd and 3rd lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In addition, it is also unclear as to which of the accommodating portions is being referred to. Is the “accommodating portion” referring to “at least two accommodating portions (in the 2nd line of claim 1), “at least one first accommodating portion” (in the 3rd line of claim 1), or "at least one second accommodating portion" (bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1)? Correction and clarification are required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the battery cell" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is also unclear whether "the battery cell" should be replaced with "the first battery cell" or "the second battery cell". Correction and clarification are required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the accommodating portion" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In addition, it is also unclear as to which of the accommodating portions is being referred to. Is the “accommodating portion” referring to “at least two accommodating portions (in the 2nd line of claim 1), “at least one first accommodating portion” (in the 3rd line of claim 1), or "at least one second accommodating portion" (bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1)? Correction and clarification are required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the battery cell" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is also unclear whether "the battery cell" should be replaced with "the first battery cell" or "the second battery cell". Correction and clarification are required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the accommodating portion" bridging the 4th and 5th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In addition, it is also unclear as to which of the accommodating portions is being referred to. Is the “accommodating portion” referring to “at least two accommodating portions (in the 2nd line of claim 1), “at least one first accommodating portion” (in the 3rd line of claim 1), or "at least one second accommodating portion" (bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1)? Correction and clarification are required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the body" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the accommodating portions" bridging the 2nd and 3rd lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In addition, it is also unclear as to which of the accommodating portions is being referred to. Is the “accommodating portion” referring to “at least two accommodating portions (in the 2nd line of claim 1), “at least one first accommodating portion” (in the 3rd line of claim 1), or "at least one second accommodating portion" (bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1)? Correction and clarification are required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the opening" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the accommodating portions" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In addition, it is also unclear as to which of the accommodating portions is being referred to. Is the “accommodating portion” referring to “at least two accommodating portions (in the 2nd line of claim 1), “at least one first accommodating portion” (in the 3rd line of claim 1), or "at least one second accommodating portion" (bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1)? Correction and clarification are required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the surface" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the opening" bridging the 1st and 2nd lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first accommodating portion" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the first accommodating portion" with "the at least one first accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one first accommodating portion" in the 3rd line of claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the opening" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the second accommodating portion" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second accommodating portion" with "the at least one second accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second accommodating portion" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the inner wall" bridging the 1st and 2nd lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first accommodating portion" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the first accommodating portion" with "the at least one first accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one first accommodating portion" in the 3rd line of claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first axial direction" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the inner wall" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second accommodating portion" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second accommodating portion" with "the at least one second accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second accommodating portion" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the opening" bridging the 1st and 2nd lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second accommodating portion" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second accommodating portion" with "the at least one second accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second accommodating portion" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the opening" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second accommodating portion" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second accommodating portion" with "the at least one second accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second accommodating portion" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first accommodating portions" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the first accommodating portions" with "the at least two first accommodating portions" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least two first accommodating portions" bridging the 2nd and 3rd lines of claim 12.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the height direction" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the opening" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first side" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the inner wall" bridging the 1st and 2nd lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first accommodating portion" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to do one of the following: 1) replace "the first accommodating portion" with "the at least one first accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one first accommodating portion" in the 3rd line of claim 1; or 2) replace "the first accommodating portion" with "the at least two first accommodating portions" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least two first accommodating portions" bridging the 2nd and 3rd lines of claim 12. Correction and clarification are required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first axial direction" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first accommodating portion" bridging the 4th and 5th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to do one of the following: 1) replace "the first accommodating portion" with "the at least one first accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one first accommodating portion" in the 3rd line of claim 1; or 2) replace "the first accommodating portion" with "the at least two first accommodating portions" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least two first accommodating portions" bridging the 2nd and 3rd lines of claim 12. Correction and clarification are required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first accommodating portion" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to do one of the following: 1) replace "the first accommodating portion" with "the at least one first accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one first accommodating portion" in the 3rd line of claim 1; or 2) replace "the first accommodating portion" with "the at least two first accommodating portions" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least two first accommodating portions" bridging the 2nd and 3rd lines of claim 12. Correction and clarification are required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the second accommodating portion" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second accommodating portion" with "the at least one second accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second accommodating portion" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the second accommodating portion" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second accommodating portion" with "the at least one second accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second accommodating portion" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the working position" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the accommodating position" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the opening" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the second accommodating portion" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second accommodating portion" with "the at least one second accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second accommodating portion" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the outside" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the second accommodating portion" bridging the 6th and 7th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second accommodating portion" with "the at least one second accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second accommodating portion" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the second accommodating portion" in the 7th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second accommodating portion" with "the at least one second accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second accommodating portion" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the accommodating space" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the second accommodating portion" bridging the 1st and 2nd lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second accommodating portion" with "the at least one second accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second accommodating portion" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the second side" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the second accommodating portion" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second accommodating portion" with "the at least one second accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second accommodating portion" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the second accommodating portion" bridging the 1st and 2nd lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second accommodating portion" with "the at least one second accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second accommodating portion" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the top surface" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the second accommodating portion" bridging the 2nd and 3rd lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second accommodating portion" with "the at least one second accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second accommodating portion" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the second accommodating portion" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second accommodating portion" with "the at least one second accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second accommodating portion" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1.
With regard to claim 16 (in the 5th line), the phrase “can wirelessly charge” is indefinite, as “can wirelessly charge” recites an optional function of “wirelessly charging”. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “can wirelessly charge” with “wirelessly charges” to more distinctly define this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the second accommodating portion" bridging the 4th and 5th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second accommodating portion" with "the at least one second accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second accommodating portion" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the first battery cell" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the first battery cell" with "the at least one first battery cell" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one first battery cell" in the 2nd line of claim 17.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the second battery cell" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second battery cell" with "the at least one second battery cell" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second battery cell" in the 2nd line of claim 17.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the first battery cell" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the first battery cell" with "the at least one first battery cell" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one first battery cell" in the 2nd line of claim 17.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the second battery cell" in the 5th line (1st instance). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second battery cell" with "the at least one second battery cell" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second battery cell" in the 2nd line of claim 17.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the first battery cell" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the first battery cell" with "the at least one first battery cell" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one first battery cell" in the 2nd line of claim 17.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the second battery cell" in the 5th line (2nd instance). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second battery cell" with "the at least one second battery cell" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second battery cell" in the 2nd line of claim 17.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the same or different first electrical device" in the 6th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first battery cell" bridging the 1st and 2nd lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the first battery cell" with "the at least one first battery cell" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one first battery cell" in the 2nd line of claim 17.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the second battery cell" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second battery cell" with "the at least one second battery cell" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second battery cell" in the 2nd line of claim 17.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first electrical device" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the second battery pack" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second battery pack" with "the plurality of second battery packs" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "a plurality of second battery packs" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 18.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the second accommodating portion" in the 4th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second accommodating portion" with "the at least one second accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second accommodating portion" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the opening" in the 5th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the opening" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the second accommodating portion" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "the second accommodating portion" with "the at least one second accommodating portion" to obtain proper antecedent basis with "at least one second accommodating portion" bridging the 3rd and 4th lines of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 17 insofar as definite (in view of the numerous 35 USC 112(b) rejections) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiratsuka (US 2020/0395771).
Regarding independent claim 1 and claim 17, Hiratsuka discloses an energy storage power supply of an energy storage device (abstract; paragraphs [0023]-[0047]; and Figures 1-3), in which the power supply (100) of the energy storage device is adapted to cordlessly supply power to (at least) first and second battery cells, and includes the following structural features:
a housing (10) defining plural battery units (30) – see paragraphs [0023]-[0027]; and Figures 1(a), 2(a), and 2(b), and including battery units (30a, 30b, 30c, 30d) in Figure 3 (also see paragraph [0040]); and
at least two accommodating portions associated with the plural battery units (30, 30a, 30b, 30c, 30d), wherein the at least two accommodating portions comprise at least one first accommodating portion and at least one second accommodating portion that respectively are adapted to detachably accommodate differing first and second battery cells within at least the battery units (30a and 30b), and are further provided with a charging portion to supply power to one or both of the first battery cell and/or the second battery cell, wherein the battery cells would be different from one another (since the battery cells operate in plurality and are replaceable), and wherein the first and second battery cells are adapted to supply power to a first electrical device that is separate from the energy storage power supply (100) – see paragraphs [0033]-[0041] and Figures 2(a), 2(b), and 3.
Regarding claim 3, Hiratsuka discloses that the charging portion of the first battery cell and/or the second battery cell would necessarily include first connection terminals for electrical connection to each of the first connection terminals of the charging portion (see paragraphs [0039]-[0041] and Figure 3).
Regarding claims 4 and 5 (of which claim 5 is objected to as being a duplicate claim as claim 4 in the above Claim Objections section), Hiratsuka discloses that the energy storage power supply (100) further comprises a DC output interface and/or an AC output interface, in which one of the DC output interface or an AC output interface would be adapted to be electrically connected to a second electrical device, so as to be directly powered by the energy storage power supply (100) – see paragraphs [0039], [0041], and [0043]-[0047]; and Figure 3.
Regarding claim 6, Hiratsuka discloses that the energy storage power supply (100) includes at least one further energy storage battery pack (see battery packs 3 and 4 of Figure 3 as the broadest reasonable interpretation of further battery packs), in addition to a control module (51) arranged in the housing (10) and being capable of controlling/regulating energy from a power supply of the energy storage battery pack(s) to an outside (external power supply), and the charging portion is electrically connected to the energy storage battery pack(s) through the control module (51) – see paragraphs [0039] and [0040]; and Figure 3.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Hiratsuka discloses that the energy storage power supply (100) includes that the housing (10) comprises a housing body enclosing a body of each of the at least two accommodating portions, wherein an opening of each of the accommodating portions is formed on a surface of the housing body (see paragraphs [0023]-[0027] and [0033]-[0041]; and Figures 1(a), 2(a), 2(b), and 3), wherein an ejection mechanism (via open end(s) or spring(s) at end portions, as broadly interpreted) would be disposed in each accommodating portion in order to selective keep or separate the battery cell(s) from a respective accommodating portion, wherein opening(s) of the accommodating portions would be formed on a surface of the housing body of the housing (10) – see Figures 1(a), 1(b), and 2(b).
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.
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.
Claims 2, 9-13, 18, and 19 insofar as definite (in view of the numerous 35 USC 112(b) rejections) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiratsuka (US 2020/0395771).
Regarding claims 2, 18, and 19, Hiratsuka discloses the structural features of the energy storage power supply (100) set forth in claims 1 and 17 above, including the first battery cell, the second battery cell, and the (second) battery packs with a plurality of charging compartments (see Figure 3 that includes plural battery units (30, 30a, 30b, 30c, 30d)), but fails to explicitly teach a mounting box of an integrated package. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further provide a mounting box for the first and second battery cells to be placed in a secure charging compartment, since the housing (10) of the energy storage power supply (100) would necessarily include an integrated package (as an assembly of battery cells and battery packs) to be securely connected to subcomponent(s) in the form of at least one mounting box that would be securely mounted on an interior surface of and/or within the housing (10), for the purpose of providing an energy storage power supply with a housing and firmly securing subcomponent(s) therein (see paragraphs [0024] and [0036]-[0038]; and Figures 1(a), 1(b), 2(a), and 2(b)).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, although Hiratsuka discloses the structural features of the energy storage power supply (100) set forth in claims 1 and 8 above, including that an opening of the (at least one) first accommodating portion is located on one surface of the housing body of the housing (10), Hiratsuka fails to explicitly teach that the (at least one) second accommodating portion is located on at least two surfaces of the housing body. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the location of the (at least one) second accommodating portion to be positioned at any part of the housing body, including to be secured to at least two surfaces of the housing body, in order to fit the design expediency and more firmly secure the (at least one) second accommodating portion with an opening, since two attachments are more secure than a single connection (also see paragraphs [0024] and [0036]-[0038]; and Figures 1(a), 1(b), 2(a), and 2(b)). Regarding the limitation of the opening of the (at least one) second accommodating portion being either L-shaped or U-shaped, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a change in shape would meet the design expediency of optimizing securing attachments within the housing body. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of the opening of the (at least one) second accommodating portion, since modification of shape is merely a design choice. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, any change in shape is merely a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) and referring to In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claims 10, 12, and 13, although Hiratsuka discloses the structural features of the energy storage power supply (100) set forth in claims 1 and 8 above, and further discloses/suggests the features of claim 9 above, Hiratsuka fails to explicitly teach distinct orientations (directional and sequential arrangement along a height direction) in which the battery cells would attain a secure fit into the respective (at least one) first accommodating portion and the (at least one) second accommodating portion. However, since Hiratsuka discloses that the battery cells are to be placed in the respective (at least one) first and (at least one) second accommodating portions (while also reciting that the battery cells selectively would be in cylindrical or rectangular form for circumferentially or axially limiting movement, respectively, while having freedom of movement in a first axial direction, as set forth in applicants’ claims 10 and 13 – see paragraph [0034]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further design a compartment that would be suitable to sequentially arrange the respective (at least) first and second accommodating portions, for the purpose of further restricting motion of the battery cells in either of the lateral or perpendicular directions (see paragraphs [0036]-[0038]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: the prior art fails to teach or suggest an energy storage power supply that includes all structural features of the combination of independent claim 1 and claim 12, and further comprises the following structural features (of dependent claim 14, from which claims 15 and 16 depend):
the housing comprises a housing body, and the (at least one) second accommodating portion is movably disposed on the housing body, so that the (at least one) second accommodating portion moves between a working position and an accommodating position, wherein
in the working position, an opening of the (at least one) second accommodating portion is connected to an outside so that the second battery cell is adapted to be inserted into the (at least one) second accommodating portion, and
in the accommodating position, the (at least one) second accommodating portion is at least partially accommodated in an accommodating space of the housing body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 October 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights