DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/442927, “BATTERY PACK”, was filed with the USPTO on 2/15/24 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 3/27/23.
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 on the merits is in response to communication filed on 8/28/24.
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)(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.
(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.
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 of this title, 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 1, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over, Kano (US 2015/0222131).
Regarding claim 1, Kano teaches battery pack (Fig. 1) comprising:
a plurality of secondary batteries that are cylindrical (items 17, paragraph [0048]);
a holder (items 18a, 18b) that holds the plurality of secondary batteries; and
a case (item 10a,10b) that houses the holder,
wherein one of the case and the holder includes a first protruding portion (Figs. 3, 4 item 40) that protrudes along a virtual line extending from one of the case and the holder toward the other of the case and the holder (e.g. Fig. 7 shows a protruding portion protruding from the case towards the holder)),
the other of the case and the holder supports the first protruding portion in a state of being in contact with a distal end portion of the first protruding portion (e.g. Fig. 7), and includes three or more second protruding portions (items 14 of Fig. 6), and
the three or more second protruding portions surround the first protruding portion in plan view viewed along an extending direction of the virtual line (Figure 7 best illustrates the second protrusions 140a, 141a surrounding a first protrusion 40a, 40b; Figure 6 clarifies that there are more than 3 of the items 140a,141a).
It is noted that the majority of the Kano embodiments do not disclose the second protrusions being elastically deformable.
However, Kano clarifies that the second protrusions attached to the case may be the deformable protrusion (paragraph [0141]) and that various embodiments may be combined within the scope of the disclosure as long as no technical contradiction occurs (paragraphs [0143-0144]).
Thus, the claimed embodiment, which comprises three or more elastically deformable second protrusions disposed on the case or the holder, is disclosed by Kano so as to anticipate claim 1, or is at least obvious as achieved by combining the suggestion of various Kano embodiments, noting that a prima facie case of obviousness for combining elements of the prior art to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Kano remains as applied to claim 1. Kano further teaches wherein the three or more second protruding portions in a deformed state support the first protruding portion (the rejection of claim 1 relies on the Kano teaching that the plurality of protrusions attached to the case are configured to deform and support the first protruding portion).
Regarding claim 7, Kano remains as applied to claim 1. Kano further teaches wherein the holder holds the plurality of secondary batteries in a state where the plurality of secondary batteries are arranged in parallel (Fig. 1), and the first protruding portion is located between center axes of two of the secondary batteries adjacent to each other in a parallel direction of the secondary batteries in plan view viewed along the extending direction of the virtual line (best seen in Figs. 4 and 5, where the protrusion 40 is disposed between the center axis of its closest batteries).
Claims 1, 2-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Sugiyama (US 2018/0301773) and Shindo (JP 2011-096796).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiyama teaches battery pack (Fig. 1-3) comprising:
a plurality of secondary batteries that are cylindrical (items 21, paragraph [0038]);
a holder (item 22) that holds the plurality of secondary batteries; and
a case (item 31,32) that houses the holder (Fig. 2),
wherein one of the case and the holder includes a first protruding portion (item 5 is a protruding portion which is attached to a “first wall” of the case as described in paragraphs [0090-0095]) that protrudes along a virtual line extending from one of the case and the holder toward the other of the case and the holder (Fig. 3 best illustrates the protrusion extending in a direction towards the holder 22, although case is not shown in this figure),
the other of the case and the holder supports the first protruding portion in a state of being in contact with a distal end portion of the first protruding portion (as shown in Fig. 3, holder 22 includes holes 22c which receive the protrusions of items 5).
Sugiyama teaches holes 22c configured to support the first protruding portions, thereby providing a vibration protection function for an electronic device comprising a battery (paragraph [0005-0007]), but does not teach the holes including three or more second protruding portions that are elastically deformable with the three or more second protruding portions surround the first protruding portion in plan view viewed along an extending direction of the virtual line.
In art also drawn to electronic apparatuses which require dampening, Shindo teaches a dampening structure comprising a protrusion and a hole receiver, wherein the hole receiver may be configured configured as a complete cylinder (Fig. 1, item 5), or alternatively, may be provided in a divided structure having three or more parts, with the number selected based on the desired buffering properties (Fig. 4; “As shown in FIG. 4, the cylindrical portion at the center of the damper fixing bracket 3 has a structure having a single bent-shaped spring property so as to be divided into four equal parts and spread outward. On the other hand, the portion on the cylindrical inner wall side of the damper fixing bracket 5 is processed flat. However, the number of times of bending, the number of divisions of the cylindrical shape, and the area of the flat processed surface may be increased or decreased in consideration of heat dissipation and buffering properties”, T019).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the dampening structure of Sugiyama such that instead of a complete cylinder, the protrusions receiving hole is configured to include the claimed structure including three or more elastically deformable protrusions configured to surround the first protrusion and oriented as claimed, as an alternative means of holding the protrusion taught by Shindo, since this alternative structure provides the predictable result of adequate mating between the two parts of the dampening structure, regardless of whether there are zero [a complete cylinder] or three or more protrusions on the receiving hole.
It is noted that is from a different field of endeavor (printed circuit board technology) than Sugiyama and the instant invention (battery technology). However, as described in MPEP 2141.01(a) I, a reference may be considered analogous art and therefore used in an obviousness rejection if: “1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Here, Shindo is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because Shindo solves the common problem of stabilizing parts of an electronic device, and utilizes a similar means for solving the problem, i.e. application of elastic dampeners to stabilize the device. Thus, Shindo is found to be analogous art under (2).
Regarding claim 2-6, Sugiyama and Shindo remain as applied to claim 1. The structure described in these claims is the same as, or at least obvious in view of Shindo, noting that Shindo teaches (e.g. Fig. 4; T019) the structure which supports a columnar first protruding portion as comprised of four (though variations in number are disclosed by Shindo) second protruding portions, which have a spring property and are inclined to taper so as to widen towards the distal end of the second protrusions, so as to mate with a columnar first protrusion.
It would have been obvious to further include the structure set forth in claims 2-6 for the same reasons as previously given in the rejection of claim 1, as these features are an additional part of the Shindo alternative structure which was incorporated into Sugiyama as described in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Sugiyama and Shindo remain as applied to claim 1. Sugiyama further teaches protruding portions 5 on opposite sides of the battery (Fig. 4), thus the structure of the combined embodiment would include the opposite structure required of claim 8, in the same manner as described for the first structure in the rejection of claim 1.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Arkus (USP 11799151) battery pack comprising elastic dampeners;
Alisic (US 2021/0313649) battery pack with elastic dampeners;
Salcher (GB 191016365) fastener comprising plural protrusions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights