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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim D. et al. (EP 3843173 A1) in view of Kim K. et al. (US 20160372736 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Kim D. et al. discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
764
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
478
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Figure 2 above, a battery pack ([0011] line 1) comprising a battery module frame 100, i.e. lower case, provided with an accommodating cavity with an opening ([0033]).
In Figure 2 above, a battery cell which is disposed within the accommodating cavity ([0033]).
In Figure 2 above, a busbar 500, which is electrically connected with a battery cell ([0033]).
In Figure 2 above, an upper housing 400, i.e. cover, which is covered on the lower case 100 (inherently seals opening) ([0033]) and comprises a through opening 410, i.e. hole ([0036]).
In Figure 2 above, a busbar 500 and internal bolt 600, i.e. conductive member, passes through the through hole 410 and extends out of the accommodating cavity ([0036]).
In Figure 2 above, a busbar 500 and internal bolt 600, i.e. conductive member, that passes through the through hole 410 and extends out of the accommodating cavity ([0036]).
In Figure 3 above, a busbar 500, i.e. conductive bar, is disposed on an inner surface of the upper housing 400, i.e. cover; the internal bolt 600, i.e. stud, extends out of the through opening 410; the fastening part 710, i.e. connection portion, is provided with a threaded hole; the fastening part 710 is threadedly connected with the internal bolt 600; and a surface of the fastening part 710 inserted into the through opening 410 abuts against the busbar 500 ([0042], [0043]).
However, Kim D. et al. does not teach an inner surface of the upper cover is provided with a limit groove, and the conductive bar is accommodated within the limit groove.
Kim K. et al. teaches a terminal bolt and the bus bar may be placed on the center plate, and an insert groove, i.e. limit groove, may be formed in the center plate. In addition, a part of the bus bar may be inserted into the insert groove of the center plate ([0065] lines 4-9).
Kim K. et al. also teaches that due to the above, even though a strong torque is applied to the terminal bolt, it is possible to prevent the terminal bolt and peripheral parts from being damaged or deformed ([0066] lines 11-15).
In light of the motivation for using an insert groove disclosed by Kim K. et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an insert groove in the battery pack of Kim D. et al. in order to prevent the terminal bolt and peripheral parts from being damaged or deformed.
Regarding claim 2:
Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. teaches a battery pack as set forth above.
Further, Kim D. et al. teaches:
In Figure 3 above, a terminal 700, i.e. conductor terminal, which is detachably disposed on the busbar/internal bolt 500/600, i.e. conductive member ([0036]) has a fastening part, i.e. connection portion 710, with an upper protrusion part, i.e. extension portion 730, where the connection portion is inserted into the through hole 410, and the extension portion extends in a direction far away from the upper housing 400, i.e. cover ([0040], [0042]).
In Figure 3 above, the conductor terminal comprises a polygonal sealing part 720, i.e. stopping portion, disposed around a periphery of the conductor terminal 700 and the upper protrusion part, i.e. extension portion 730 and located between the connection portion and the extension portion and the polygonal sealing part 720, i.e. stopping portion, abuts against the upper housing 400, i.e. cover ([0041]).
Regarding claim 4:
Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. teaches a battery pack as set forth above.
Further, Kim D. et al. discloses in Figure 3 above, a fastening part 710, i.e. connection portion, passes through the through opening 410, i.e. through hole, and a surface of the fastening part passing through the through opening is raised above a surface of the upper housing 400, i.e. cover.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim D. et al. (EP 3843173 A1) in view of Kim K. et al. (US 20160372736 A1) and Kim H. et al. (KR 20180058552 A). It is noted that the disclosures of Kim H. et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference included with the prior action of record.
Regarding claim 3:
Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. teaches a battery pack as set forth above.
However, Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. does not teach at least one sealing groove disposed between the stopping portion and the upper cover, and the sealing groove is disposed around the through hole; and a sealing ring is further disposed within each sealing groove.
PNG
media_image3.png
552
565
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kim H. et al. teaches in Figure 4 above a sealing groove disposed between a stopping portion and a terminal cover 410, i.e. upper cover, and the sealing groove is disposed around the through hole ([0068]) so the deterioration or corrosion of O-rings, i.e. sealing rings, can be prevented ([0021] lines 3-7).
Kim H. et al. also teaches that an O-ring 200, i.e. sealing ring, is further disposed within each sealing groove ([0050], [0068]) so the sealing performance can be improved ([0042] lines 10-11).
In light of the motivation for using a sealing groove disposed between a stopping portion and a terminal cover, where the sealing groove is disposed around the through hole, and an O-ring is further disposed within each sealing groove disclosed by Kim H. et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a sealing groove disposed between a stopping portion and a terminal cover, where the sealing groove is disposed around the through hole, and an O-ring is further disposed within each sealing groove in the battery pack of Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. in order to prevent deterioration or corrosion of the O-rings and improve sealing performance.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim D. et al. (EP 3843173 A1) in view of Kim K. et al. (US 20160372736 A1).
Regarding claim 5:
Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. teaches a battery pack as set forth above.
PNG
media_image4.png
327
323
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kim D. et al. discloses that the terminal is shaped to efficiently utilize space within the battery pack ([0045]). Further, from Figures 3-4 above, it is clear that the height of the fastening part of connection portion will affect how much the terminal will protrude above the through hole. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a terminal with a connection portion that has a height, including that claimed, that minimizes space occupied by the terminal as well as minimizes protrusion of the terminal above the through hole while still properly fastening with the internal bolt.
Claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim D. et al. (EP 3843173 A1) in view of Kim K. et al. (US 20160372736 A1) alone or alternatively in further view of Henderson et al. (US 20160172653 A1).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 9:
Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. teaches a battery pack as set forth above.
Kim D. et al. also teaches a fastening part 710, i.e. connection portion, fastened on the busbar and internal bolt 500 and 600, i.e. conductive member. A screw thread may be formed on an outer surface of the body part 610, and the nut-shaped fastening part 710 may have a screw thread formed on an inner surface of the indentation structure into which the body part 610 is inserted, i.e. connection portion is provided with a threaded hole ([0043]).
However, Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. does not teach a hexagonal socket hole.
PNG
media_image5.png
696
512
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Henderson et al. teaches in Figure 2b above, the top of an enclosure 152 further includes a terminal receptacle 154-1 . . . 154-2, each adapted to receive a corresponding terminal 140 and has a non-circular shape for engaging a corresponding shape on the terminal, such as a hex or square ([0027] lines 2-7).
Henderson et al. also teaches that the above prevents rotation and over-torquing of wires or logs attached to the terminals, as the top 152 absorbs rotational force on the terminals, rather than the underlying control layer 126 (e.g. circuit board) ([0027] lines 7-11).
In light of the motivation for using a hex shape on the terminal disclosed by Henderson et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a hex shape on the terminal in the battery pack of Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. in order to prevent over-torquing of wires or logs attached to the terminal.
Alternatively, while the extension portion of the terminal of Kim D. et al. would necessarily have a hole, there is no disclosure that this hole is in the shape of a hexagonal socket. However, as the specification is silent to unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the shape of the hole of the extension portion of the terminal of Kim D. et al. based on routine experimentation, for the purpose of optimizing operation of said terminal. Such modifications would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Further, the threaded hole and the hexagonal socket hole would necessarily extend and communicate between the two ends of the conductor terminal.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim D. et al. (EP 3843173 A1) in view of Kim K. et al. (US 20160372736 A1) and Kim H. et al. (KR 20180058552 A) alone or alternatively in further view of Henderson et al. (US 20160172653 A1). It is noted that the disclosures of Kim H. et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference included with the prior action of record.
Regarding claim 8:
Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. and Kim H. et al. teaches a battery pack as set forth above.
Further, Kim D. et al. also teaches a fastening part 710, i.e. connection portion, fastened on the busbar and internal bolt 500 and 600, i.e. conductive member. A screw thread may be formed on an outer surface of the body part 610, and the nut-shaped fastening part 710 may have a screw thread formed on an inner surface of the indentation structure into which the body part 610 is inserted, i.e. connection portion is provided with a threaded hole ([0043]).
However, Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. and Kim H. et al. does not teach a hexagonal socket hole.
PNG
media_image5.png
696
512
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Henderson et al. teaches in Figure 2b above, the top of an enclosure 152 further includes a terminal receptacle 154-1 . . . 154-2, each adapted to receive a corresponding terminal 140 and has a non-circular shape for engaging a corresponding shape on the terminal, such as a hex or square ([0027] lines 2-7).
Henderson et al. also teaches that the above prevents rotation and over-torquing of wires or logs attached to the terminals, as the top 152 absorbs rotational force on the terminals, rather than the underlying control layer 126 (e.g. circuit board) ([0027] lines 7-11).
In light of the motivation for using a hex shape on the terminal disclosed by Henderson et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a hex shape on the terminal in the battery pack of Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. and Kim H. et al. in order to prevent over-torquing of wires or logs attached to the terminal.
Alternatively, while the extension portion of the terminal of Kim D. et al. would necessarily have a hole, there is no disclosure that this hole is in the shape of a hexagonal socket. However, as the specification is silent to unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the shape of the hole of the extension portion of the terminal of Kim D. et al. based on routine experimentation, for the purpose of optimizing operation of said terminal. Such modifications would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Further, the threaded hole and the hexagonal socket hole would necessarily extend and communicate between the two ends of the conductor terminal.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim D. et al. (EP 3843173 A1) in view of Kim K. et al. (US 20160372736 A1) alone or alternatively in further view of Henderson et al. (US 20160172653 A1).
Regarding claim 10:
Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. teaches a battery pack as set forth above.
Kim D. et al. also teaches a fastening part 710, i.e. connection portion, fastened on the busbar and internal bolt 500 and 600, i.e. conductive member. A screw thread may be formed on an outer surface of the body part 610, and the nut-shaped fastening part 710 may have a screw thread formed on an inner surface of the indentation structure into which the body part 610 is inserted, i.e. connection portion is provided with a threaded hole ([0043]).
However, Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. does not teach a hexagonal socket hole.
PNG
media_image5.png
696
512
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Henderson et al. teaches in Figure 2b above, the top of an enclosure 152 further includes a terminal receptacle 154-1 . . . 154-2, each adapted to receive a corresponding terminal 140 and has a non-circular shape for engaging a corresponding shape on the terminal, such as a hex or square ([0027] lines 2-7).
Henderson et al. also teaches that the above prevents rotation and over-torquing of wires or logs attached to the terminals, as the top 152 absorbs rotational force on the terminals, rather than the underlying control layer 126 (e.g. circuit board) ([0027] lines 7-11).
In light of the motivation for using a hex shape on the terminal disclosed by Henderson et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a hex shape on the terminal in the battery pack of Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. in order to prevent over-torquing of wires or logs attached to the terminal.
Alternatively, while the extension portion of the terminal of Kim D. et al. would necessarily have a hole, there is no disclosure that this hole is in the shape of a hexagonal socket. However, as the specification is silent to unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the shape of the hole of the extension portion of the terminal of Kim D. et al. based on routine experimentation, for the purpose of optimizing operation of said terminal. Such modifications would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Further, the threaded hole and the hexagonal socket hole would necessarily extend and communicate between the two ends of the conductor terminal.
Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim D. et al. (EP 3843173 A1) in view of Kim K. et al. (US 20160372736 A1) alone or alternatively in further view of Henderson et al. (US 20160172653 A1) and further in view of Tang (CN 107985050 A). It is noted that the disclosures of Tang are based on a machine translation of the reference included with the prior action of record.
Regarding claims 11-12 and 14:
Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. alone or alternatively in further view of Henderson et al. teaches a battery pack as set forth above.
However, Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. alone or alternatively in further view of Henderson et al. does not teach an extension length of the threaded hole ranging from 7 mm to 10 mm.
Tang teaches a threaded hole with a thread length of 7.5 mm ([0026] line 17).
Tang also teaches a threaded hole can form 4 to 5 threads to ensure mechanical performance (the number of threads can be increased according to actual needs), and the thread grade reaches 10.9 through surface treatment ([0026] lines 17-20).
In light of the motivation for using a threaded hole with a thread length of 7.5 mm disclosed by Tang as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a threaded hole with a thread length of 7.5 mm in the battery pack of Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. alone or alternatively in further view of Henderson et al. in order to ensure mechanical performance.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim D. et al. (EP 3843173 A1) in view of Kim H. et al. (KR 20180058552 A) alone or alternatively in further view of Henderson et al. (US 20160172653 A1) and further in view of Tang (CN 107985050 A). It is noted that the disclosures of Kim H. et al. and Tang are based on a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
Regarding claim 13:
Kim D. et al. alone or alternatively in view of Henderson et al. and further in view of Kim H. et al. teaches a battery pack as set forth above.
However, Kim D. et al. alone or alternatively in view of Henderson et al. and further in view of Kim H. et al. does not teach an extension length of the threaded hole ranging from 7 mm to 10 mm.
Tang teaches a threaded hole with a thread length of 7.5 mm ([0026] line 17).
Tang also teaches a threaded hole can form 4 to 5 threads to ensure mechanical performance (the number of threads can be increased according to actual needs), and the thread grade reaches 10.9 through surface treatment ([0026] lines 17-20).
In light of the motivation for using a threaded hole with a thread length of 7.5 mm disclosed by Tang as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a threaded hole with a thread length of 7.5 mm in the battery pack of Kim D. et al. alone or alternatively in view of Henderson et al. and further in view of Kim H. et al. in order to ensure mechanical performance.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim D. et al. (EP 3843173 A1) in view of Kim K. et al. (US 20160372736 A1) alone or alternatively in further view of Henderson et al. (US 20160172653 A1) and even further in view of Tang (CN 107985050 A).
Regarding claim 15:
Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. alone or alternatively in further view of Henderson et al. teaches a battery pack as set forth above.
However, Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. alone or alternatively in further view of Henderson et al. does not teach an extension length of the threaded hole ranging from 7 mm to 10 mm.
Tang teaches a threaded hole with a thread length of 7.5 mm ([0026] line 17).
Tang also teaches a threaded hole can form 4 to 5 threads to ensure mechanical performance (the number of threads can be increased according to actual needs), and the thread grade reaches 10.9 through surface treatment ([0026] lines 17-20).
In light of the motivation for using a threaded hole with a thread length of 7.5 mm disclosed by Tang as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a threaded hole with a thread length of 7.5 mm in the battery pack of Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. alone or alternatively in further view of Henderson et al. in order to ensure mechanical performance.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim D. et al. (EP 3843173 A1) in view of Kim K. et al. (US 20160372736 A1) and Suzuki et al. (JP 2020038808 A). It is noted that the disclosures of Suzuki et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
Regarding claim 17:
Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. teaches a battery pack as set forth above.
However, Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. does not teach a thickness of the conductive bar is greater than or equal to 1.2 mm.
Suzuki et al. teaches a thickness of the bus bar may be 0.5 mm to 3 mm, in order to effectively dampen vibrations ([0017] lines 4-5).
In light of the motivation for using a bus bar thickness of 0.5 mm to 3 mm disclosed by Suzuki et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a bus bar thickness of 0.5 mm to 3 mm in the battery pack of Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. in order to effectively dampen vibrations.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim D. et al. (EP 3843173 A1) in view of Kim K. et al. (US 20160372736 A1) alone or alternatively in further view of Henderson et al. (US 20160172653 A1) and even further in view of Ma et al. (CN 109309267 A).
Regarding claims 18 and 19:
Kim D. et al in view of Kim K. et al. alone or alternatively in further view of Henderson et al. teaches a battery pack as set forth above.
However, Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. alone or alternatively in further view of Henderson et al. does not teach a sealing member disposed on the hexagonal socket hole.
Ma et al. teaches that the battery cell is sealed into the battery cell cavity via the socket and fills the socket, i.e. a sealing member disposed on the hexagonal socket hole, thereby sealing the battery cell cavity and preventing leakage of cooling fluid as it passes through the battery cell cavity ([0012], [0034]).
In light of the motivation for using a battery cell sealed into the battery cell cavity via the socket, filling the socket disclosed by Ma et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a battery cell sealed into the battery cell cavity via the socket, filling the socket, in the battery pack of Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. alone or alternatively in further view of Henderson et al. in order to prevent leakage of cooling fluid as it passes through the battery cell cavity.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim D. et al. (EP 3843173 A1) in view of Kim K. et al. (US 20160372736 A1) and Kim H. et al. (KR 20180058552 A) alone or alternatively in further view of Henderson et al. (US 20160172653 A1) and even further in view of Ma et al. (CN 109309267 A).
Regarding claim 20:
Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. and Kim H. et al. alone or alternatively in further view of Henderson et al. teaches a battery pack as set forth above.
However, Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. and Kim H. et al. alone or alternatively in further view of Henderson et al. does not teach a sealing member is disposed on the hexagonal socket hole.
Ma et al. teaches that the battery cell is sealed into the battery cell cavity via the socket and fills the socket, i.e. a sealing member disposed on the hexagonal socket hole, thereby sealing the battery cell cavity and preventing leakage of cooling fluid as it passes through the battery cell cavity ([0012], [0034]).
In light of the motivation for using a battery cell sealed into the battery cell cavity via the socket, filling the socket disclosed by Ma et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a battery cell sealed into the battery cell cavity via the socket, filling the socket, in the battery pack of Kim D. et al. in view of Kim K. et al. and Kim H. et al. alone or alternatively in further view of Henderson et al. in order to prevent leakage of cooling fluid as it passes through the battery cell cavity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 17th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kim D fails to disclose the distinguishing features of amended claim 1.
It is agreed that Kim D. fails to disclose the features of amended claim 1, however, Kim D. in view of Kim K. meets the limitations of amended claim 1.
Applicant argues that the Non-Final office action stated that the center plate corresponds to the upper cover of the present invention.
Firstly, it is noted Examiner did not state that Kim K. met the upper housing, rather, Kim K. is only being used to teach the insert groove, i.e. limit groove. The upper cover is already taught by Kim D.
Kim K. is only used as teaching reference in order to teach the insert groove, i.e. limit groove. It is noted that the "test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art", In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871,881 (CCPA 1981) and that "combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures", In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USP 224, 226 (CCPA).
Applicant argues that the insert groove 420 if Kim K. is located on the upper surface of the center plate 400, rather than the inner surface of the center plate 400.
However, given the position of the busbar 500 in Kim D., it is clear that the insert groove of Kim K. would necessarily have to be on the inner surface of the upper housing 400 to accommodate the bus bar.
Applicant argues that the insert groove of Kim K. has a different object of action, primary function, and technical purpose.
However, the present claims only broadly require that the limit groove accommodate the busbar. There is nothing in the present claims that the limit groove is used to prevent the conductive bar from rotating when the conductor terminal is locked, so as to ensure the installation effect of the conductor terminal and an installation position of the conductive bar.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Kim H. fails to cure the deficiencies of Kim D. and does not meet the distinguishing technical features of amended claim, however, note that while Kim H. do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Kim H. is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely a sealing groove disposed between the stopping portion and the upper cover, and the sealing groove is disposed around the through hole, and a sealing ring is further disposed within each sealing groove, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Henderson fails to cure the deficiencies of Kim D. and does not meet the distinguishing technical features of amended claim, however, note that while Henderson do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Henderson is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely a hexagonal socket hole, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Tang fails to cure the deficiencies of Kim D. and does not meet the distinguishing technical features of amended claim, however, note that while Tang do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Tang is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely an extension length of the threaded hole ranging from 7 mm to 10 mm, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Suzuki fails to cure the deficiencies of Kim D. and does not meet the distinguishing technical features of amended claim, however, note that while Suzuki do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Suzuki is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely a thickness of the conductive bar is greater than or equal to 1.2 mm, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Ma fails to cure the deficiencies of Kim D. and does not meet the distinguishing technical features of amended claim, however, note that while Ma do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Ma is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely a sealing member disposed on the hexagonal socket hole, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON E. BROWN whose telephone number is (571)775-5984. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 5712721123. 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.
/MADISON ELIZABETH BROWN/
Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights