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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/29/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged. The Examiner notes Applicant elected Species A with traverse but failed to include arguments.
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Sub, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/29/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Subspecies A1 in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the dependent claims identified do not recite separate inventions requiring separate examination and no patentable distinctness or serious search and examination burden is established. This is not found persuasive because each of the separate 1P/2P/3P configurations require separate text searches for the distinct limitations (i.e. 1P vs. 2P vs. 3P and height of battery pack), establishing a search burden. Species A1-A3 further include characteristics that are mutually exclusive characteristics (i.e. 1P vs. 2P vs. 3P) such that prior art applicable to one species may not be relevant to another species, establishing an examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (WO2022247517A1, see English language equivalent US20240088506A1 for citations).
Regarding claim 1 and 16, Luo discloses a battery pack ([0007]), comprising a housing assembly (i.e. battery housing assembly, [0009]); a plurality of cells disposed in the housing assembly (i.e. battery cell assembly housed in battery housing assembly includes plurality of battery cells, [0166]); a circuit board disposed in the housing assembly (i.e. circuit board housed in battery pack housing, [0166]) and connected to the plurality of cells (i.e. battery cells is electrically connected to the circuit board, [0166]).
Luo further discloses at least two electrical terminals (i.e. power supply terminal and plurality of tool Type-C connectors and corresponding plug-in ports, [0167];[0170]) connected to the circuit board, as shown in annotated Luo Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
330
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Luo Fig. 2
Luo further discloses the Type-C connector is fixed and welded to the to the circuit board ([0176]), having corresponding plug-in ports ([0170]), and where the type-C connector can be used to connect the battery assembly to mobile phones and other electronic products ([0176]).
Furthermore, Luo discloses the power supply terminal enables the battery pack to plugged into an electric tool to supply power to an electric tool ([0178]). Thus, Luo satisfies the claim limitation, “at least two electrical terminals connected to the circuit board and configured to be coupled to an apparatus terminal on an external device when the battery pack is connected to the external device”.
Furthermore, Luo discloses the output power of the Type-C connector is 15-100 W ([0175]) which overlaps with the claimed range of greater than 65 W of claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges with reasonable expectation of arriving at a successful Type-C connector (see MPEP 2144.05).
Furthermore, Luo discloses the Type-C connector includes an insulating body, conductive terminal, and cover housing where the cover housing includes pins welded and fixed to the circuit board, allowing the Type-C connectors to be electrically connected with the battery cell through the pin ([0176]). Thus, Luo satisfies the claim limitation, “a power device for supplying power to the Type-C terminal is disposed on the circuit board”.
Luo further discloses the at least two terminals are disposed on the same surface of the circuit board (Fig. 2), as claimed in claim 1. Furthermore, Luo discloses the terminal block (i.e. Fig. 29, 1321, Fig 2, 132) and the power device (Fig. 2, 122) are disposed on the same mounting surface of the circuit board (Fig. 2), as claimed in claim 16.
Luo further discloses power supply terminal (Fig. 2, 132, [0167]), where the power supply terminal is mounted on the circuit board and matched between a plugging piece mounting base (i.e. terminal fixed on a terminal block, Fig. 29, 1321) and terminal mounting groove and the plugging piece mounting base is mounted on the circuit board ([0194]-[0195]).
Luo does not explicitly disclose the power supply terminal fixed on the terminal block being a metal terminal, although a skilled artisan would desire the terminal to be made of a conductive material in order for the terminal to be able to supply power through conducting electricity.
Luo teaches the conductive terminals of the Type-C connector to be made out of metal materials, thereby realizing electrical conduction of the terminal ([0176]). Therefore, being of a similar application of terminals for connection to an external device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized metal terminals for the power supply terminal to attain electrical conduction of the terminal, as taught by Luo.
Regarding claim 2, Luo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Luo further discloses the battery pack upper housing includes a limiting component (Fig. 1, Fig. 14, 111) including a limiting column (Fig. 14, 1121) which is used to realize a fixed connection between the battery pack and the external device ([0180]). As the circuit board is within the battery pack housing such that the upper housing is situated above the circuit board ([0168]), Luo satisfies the claim limitation “a locking mechanism configured to be capable of fixing the battery pack on the external device and at least partially located on an upper side of the circuit board.”
Regarding claim 3 and 4, Luo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Luo discloses the Type-C connector (i.e. power device, [0176]) is fixed and welded to the circuit board ([0176]), as claimed in claim 3. Luo further disclose an embodiment where the first and second Type-C connectors (122) is disposed between the locking mechanism (111) and the terminal block, as shown in annotated Luo Fig. 11 below, and as claimed in claims 3 and 4.
PNG
media_image2.png
534
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Luo Fig. 11
Regarding claim 5, Luo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Luo further discloses wherein in a left-right direction, a projection of the power device on the circuit board does not exceed a projection of the terminal block on the circuit board, as shown in annotated Luo Fig. 11 below.
PNG
media_image3.png
552
1133
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Luo Fig. 11
Regarding claim 6, Luo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Luo further discloses wherein in a left-right direction, a projection of the power device on the circuit board does not exceed a projection of the locking mechanism on the circuit board, as shown in annotated Luo Fig. 11 below.
PNG
media_image4.png
507
953
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Luo Fig. 11
Regarding claim 7, Luo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Luo discloses wherein the housing assembly comprises an upper housing (Fig. 3, 11) and a lower housing ([0168]). Luo further discloses a height from a top surface of the battery pack to a bottom surface of the guiding rails ranges from 0 to 30 mm ([0173], Fig. 10, L3).
A skilled artisan, based on Luo’s disclosure, would reasonably expect the circuit board to be around the guiding rails or within the space defined by L3 (Fig. 10.). Furthermore, a skilled artisan would recognize that a space greater than zero exists between the circuit board and an inner surface of the upper housing facing the power device through the disclosed embodiment, as shown below in annotated Luo Fig. 1-3 and 10.
PNG
media_image5.png
604
1107
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Luo Fig. 1-3 and 10
The disclosed L3 range of 0 to 30 mm encompasses the claimed range of 12 mm to 15 mm. A skilled artisan would further desire to optimize the distance between an inner surface of the upper housing and the circuit board in order to achieve high space efficiency and energy density as any additional space not occupied by active material will result in decreased energy density.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arrived at a distance from an inner surface of the upper surface of the housing facing the power device within the claimed range, in order to achieve a battery with satisfactory space efficiency and energy density.
Regarding claim 15, Luo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Luo further discloses each Type-C connector and/or power supply terminal are detachable connected with the access device ([0345]) where the access device can be a charging device or discharging device ([0232]), and the discharging device includes power tools (i.e. functional accessory, [0667]-[0668]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (WO2022247517A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sony (DE202012007956U1) and evidenced by Gudmundsson (General Aviation Aircraft Design - Applied Methods and Procedures).
Regarding claim 8, Luo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Luo further discloses the battery cell assembly includes a plurality of battery cells ([0166]) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of cells form a 1P battery cell group, and a height of the battery pack in an up-down direction is less than 48 mm.
In light of [0049] of the instant specification, a skilled artisan would recognize that a 1P battery cell group is a common configuration for a plurality of cells, as evidenced by Gudmundsson (pg. 242-243, bridging paragraph, Fig. 7-46).
Sony teaches a battery pack with an upper cover and lower cover housing a cell unit ([0042]). Sony further teaches the dimension in the length direction (i.e. up-down direction, Dy, Fig. 3) is 43 mm ± 2 mm ([0095], Fig. 3) which is within the claimed range of less than 48 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arrived at a height of the battery pack in an up-down direction of less than 48 mm, with reasonable expectation of achieving a successful battery pack.
Claim 11-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (WO2022247517A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Kim et al. (US20150229007A1).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Luo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Luo further discloses a support element (i.e. mounting groove cover, [0168], Fig. 14, 1121) configured to support the locking mechanism (i.e. limiting component, Fig. 14, 111) wherein the support element is at least partially exposed outside the housing assembly (Fig. 14).
Luo does not disclose the battery pack further comprising a terminal indicator light disposed on the circuit board and used for indicating a connection state of one of the at least two electrical terminals, and at least a part of the support element is a light transmissive member for directing light of the terminal indicator light outside. The Examiner notes the claim limitations, “used for indicating a connection state of one or the at least two electrical terminals” and “for directing light of the terminal indicator light outside” are functional language limitations (MPEP 2173.05) which do not further impart structural limitations on the claimed battery pack. The structure is simply the battery pack further comprising a terminal indicator light disposed on the circuit board and at least part of the support element is a light transmissive member.
Kim teaches a battery module including an LED element on a PCB ([0001]). The LED element is installed on the circuit board and displays changes in operating states of the battery module ([0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the LED element for the benefit of indicating the operating state of the battery, as taught by Kim.
Furthermore, Kim teaches a light transmissive LED cover in order to effectively diffuse light emitted from the LED element, making the light easy on the eyes ([0014]). Kim further teaches the LED cover includes a light guide plate which may be formed of an optically transmissive plastic material (i.e. plastic light transmissive member, [0038]-[0039]), as claimed in claim 13.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the LED cover made of optically transmissive plastic material for the support element to make the light from the LED element easy on the eyes, as taught by Kim.
Regarding claim 12, modified Luo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Luo further discloses wherein the support element (i.e. mounting groove cover, Luo, [0168], Fig. 14, 1121) is fixed on the housing assembly (Luo, Fig. 3, 14, [0168]).
Modified Luo further discloses the terminal light is disposed between the circuit board (i.e. LED element installed on protective circuit board, Kim, [0017], Fig, 2) and support element (i.e. LED cover, Kim, [0014], Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 14, modified Luo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Luo further discloses wherein the support element (i.e. mounting groove cover, Luo, [0168], Fig. 14, 1121) is exposed on at least one side of the battery pack (i.e. limiting component mounting groove 112 sealed by mounting groove cover 1121, Luo, Fig. 3 and 14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:00 PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/6/2026
Prosecution Insights