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 .
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)(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 1, 4, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 20220247046). Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. is directed to a battery comprising a case (314), a first insulating component (219) disposed in the case and sleeved on the battery cells, the first insulating component comprising a substrate and a first extending portion (shown near 212h) extending from a surface of the first substrate toward the cells and being used to position the cells, and a second extending portion (211) extending from an outer edge of the first substrate toward the cells, an extension length of the second extending portion being greater than an extension length of the first extending portion (Fig. 2). Regarding claim 4, in the extending direction of the second extending portion, the extension length of the second extending portion is less than the length of the battery cells (Figs. 2 and 7). Regarding claim 7, the first and second extending portions are formed integrally. Regarding claim 10, a device using the battery is disclosed ([0005]). Thus, the instant claims are anticipated.
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al.
The reference is applied to claim 1 for the reasons stated above. However, the reference does not expressly teach the spacing relationships as recited in claims 5 and 6.
However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the artisan would have been motivated to make the spacing between the first insulating component (second extending portion thereof) and the casing as small as possible, so as to not unnecessarily increase the volume of the battery. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to configure the maximum spacing between the second extending portion and the case be smaller than both the maximum spacing between the first extending portion and the outer surface of the battery cells (claim 5), and the minimum spacing between two adjacent battery cells (claim 6). Accordingly, claims 5 and 6 would be rendered obvious.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. in view of CN 109004137.
Lee et al. is applied to claim 1 for the reasons stated above. Further, the reference teaches that the first extending portion is enclosed to form a first positioning slot in which a portion of each battery is positioned.
However, the reference does not expressly teach that a first end face of the first extending portion away from the substrate is provided with a first guide portion, and the guide portion is spaced around the positioning slot as recited in claim 2.
CN ‘137 is directed to a power battery module. The module comprises brackets (201, 202) which accommodate the ends of the battery cells (Figs. 1-3). Bracket 201 comprises, in each battery accommodating portion, a stepped shape, the outer part of the step corresponding to the claimed “guide portion” (Fig. 2).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). Therefore, the skilled artisan would have used the stepped portions of CN ‘137 in the insulating components of Lee et al., therefore forming the claimed “guide portion.” Furthermore, such a guide portion is “spaced apart around the positioning slot” as claimed because it is spaced apart from the first extending portion in a radial direction, and it is spaced apart from itself in a radial direction.
Furthermore, regarding claim 3, CN ‘137 appears to show the claimed relationship of lengths (that is, the first extending portion plus guide portion is less than the length of the second extending portion). It would have been obvious to create this relationship in modified Lee et al. as well.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Claim 8 recites a second insulating component, the second insulating component being on a side of the first insulating component facing an opening of the case, the second component provided with a glue potting port and a first wiring harness channel, and the first insulating component is provided with a second wiring harness channel, the first channel and the second channel are disposed along a length direction of the battery cells, and the potting port and the first channel are disposed on either side of the second insulating component in a width direction of the battery respectively. Lee et al. teaches a second insulating component (217), but does not teach or fairly suggest the claim limitations either alone or in combination. The reference fails to disclose a specific orientation of wiring harness channels or ports that could function as glue potting ports, or that the second insulating component is oriented such that it is “on a side of the first insulating component facing an opening of the case” as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
June 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights