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 .
BATTERY PACK
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/435,384 Art Unit: 1727 June 8, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
The Application filed February 07, 2024 has been received. Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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 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) 1-6, 8 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al. (US 2019/0067635 A1).
As to Claims 1 and 13, Nakamura discloses a battery pack 1, comprising: a plurality of batteries 21 supported in a holder 22; and an elastic body 5 made of rubber provided between the batteries and the holder, wherein each of the batteries has an end surface on which the positive terminal A has a convex shape; the holder has a side plate portion (side portions of cell holder 22a in Fig. 5 having exposure holes 24) provided with a first opening 24 at a place facing the positive terminal; and the elastic body includes a sheet portion (flat portion of the elastic body from which the projections extend, see 71; and also the portions between the projections 52-54 in Fig. 1-6) arranged in a region between the end surface and the side plate portion and provided with a second opening 51 having a diameter smaller than the diameter of the first opening at a place facing the positive terminal; and a projection 52,53,54 that projects toward both the side plate portion side and the positive terminal side of the sheet portion and is in contact with the side plate portion and the positive terminal. Nakamura discloses that the positive terminal A is press-fit into the hole 51 and because the protruding portion 52 is arranged at an edge of the hole, it is evident that in the state where the cell is press-fit into the hole, the protruding portion 52 is in contact with the positive terminal A; and the protruding portion 54 is in contact with an edge portion of the side plate portion of the cell holder 22a (Fig. 1-6 and paragraphs [0005, 0049, 0069-0076]).
As to Claim 2, Nakamura discloses wherein the protruding portion 52 is in contact with an end portion of an upper surface of the positive terminal and in contact with an inner wall of the first opening 24 (Fig. 6).
As to Claim 3, Nakamura discloses wherein the projection 52,53,54 has a shape that is vertically symmetrical with the sheet portion as a center in a vertical section (Fig. 4-6).
As to Claims 4-5, Nakamura discloses a first projection 52 that projects towards both the side plate portion side and the positive terminal side of the sheet portion and are provided at positions facing each other and is in contact with the end portion of an upper surface of the positive terminal; and a second projection 54 that projects towards both the side plate portion side and the positive terminal side of the sheet portion at positions facing each other and are in contact with the side surface of the first opening 24 (Fig. 4-6).
As to Claims 6 and 12, Nakamura discloses wherein the elastic body and the first and second projections have a vertically symmetrical shape with the sheet portion as a center in a vertical section (Fig. 4-6).
As to Claim 8, Nakamura discloses wherein metal tabs 25a fixed to the positive terminal A and in contact with the projection 52 (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0074).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2019/0067635 A1).
As to Claim 7, Nakamura does not specifically disclose wherein the second projection 54 has a higher height than the first projection 52 (Fig. 6). However, the courts have held 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, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the relative heights of the projections to read on the claims because Nakamura teaches that a waterproof effect can be \improved (paragraphs [0007 and 0077]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 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: the closest prior arts of record, Nakamura and Kano (US 2013/0082659 A1), do not specifically disclose, teach, or fairly suggest the claimed battery pack according to claim 4, comprising: a metal tab that is arranged at a position facing the end surface with the side plate portion interposed between the metal tab and the end surface, electrically connects the plurality of secondary batteries to each other, and is fixed to the positive electrode terminal, wherein the first projection is in contact with an end portion of an upper surface of the positive electrode terminal and the metal tab, and the second projection is in contact with a side surface of the first opening and the metal tab (claim 9). Kano teaches of a battery pack, comprising: a plurality of cells 16 arranged in a holder 18a,b and having an elastic body 21a arranged between the side plate portion of the cell holder 18b and the positive terminal 70 of the battery cell and having projections 42a,b(Fig. 5-6 and 9A-9B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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 (571)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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights