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 .
PLASTIC COMPONENT, BATTERY, BATTERY MODULE, AND ELECTRIC DEVICE
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/533,184 Art Unit: 1727 September 30, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed September 09, 2026 has been received. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-6, 8-11 and 14-20 have been amended. Claim 12 has been canceled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) on claims 4-7, 10, 12 and 20 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s Remarks and amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shi as evidenced by Jung and Zhou on claims 1-3, 6-10, 12-14 and 20 are maintained.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 2021/0119287 A1; as found in IDS dated 04/09/25); as evidenced by Jung et al. (US 2021/0344074 A1) and Zhou et al. (US 2024/0154218 A1).
As to Claims 1, 13 and 20, Shi discloses a battery module, comprising: a battery having a plastic insulating member 32 (plastic component), comprising: a body having a first side surface (see Fig. 6) having a buffer recess 312 recessed towards a second side surface (see Fig. 5), forming a buffer gap G1 and a flow guide hole (see Fig. 6); the second side surface has two connection piece recesses 326 each having an electrode terminal through hole 33 (Fig. 2, 5-6 and paragraphs [0040-0041, 0046, 0048, 0057 and 0060-0068]). Shi further discloses wherein the depth of the first buffer gap G1 is 0.8 mm- 1.5 mm (paragraph [0006]). Shi further discloses wherein a first side wall of the connection piece recess further away from the buffer recess than a second side wall of the connection piece recess closer to the buffer recess, wherein a distance between the pole through hole and the first side wall is greater than the distance between the hole and the second side wall (reproduced Fig. 5 below).
Shi does not specifically disclose the claimed size relationships. 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. In addition, it is well known in the art to reduce the size of insulating components (and components that do not increase the energy density) in order to reduce the maximum size of the battery and increase the energy density, as evidenced by Jung et al. (paragraph [0048]) and Zhou et al., (paragraph [0190]), therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the dimensions of the plastic component of Shi because Shi teaches that the energy density of the battery is reduced (paragraph [0048]). The courts have held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05, II, B.
PNG
media_image1.png
360
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claims 2-3, Shi discloses wherein the connection piece recesses 326 and the buffer recess 312 are offset from each other such that connection piece recesses are provided at opposite ends of the buffer recess (Fig. 5-6).
As to Claims 6-9, the courts have held that the size of the components are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A. In addition, it is well known in the art to reduce the size of insulating components (and components that do not increase the energy density) in order to reduce the maximum size of the battery and increase the energy density, as evidenced by Jung et al. (paragraph [0048]) and Zhou et al., (paragraph [0190]), therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the dimensions of the plastic component of Shi in order to maximize the energy density of the battery while still providing the required insulating properties. The courts have held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05, II, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the dimensions of the components because Shi teaches that the energy density of the battery is reduced (paragraph [0048]).
As to Claim 10, Shi discloses wherein the connection piece recesses 326 have rounded corners at sides close to the buffer recess 312 (Fig. 5-6). Shi does not specifically disclose the claimed fillet radius. However, the courts have held that the claimed configuration was a matter of design choice which a person having ordinary skill int eh art would have found absent persuasive evidence, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fillet radius of the rounded corners of Shi because Shi teaches that the energy density of the battery is reduced (paragraph [0048]).
As to Claim 14, Shi discloses wherein the battery comprises a cover plate 31 located at a side of the first surface of the plastic component and having a liquid injection hole; wherein a projecting of the liquid injection hole is located at the buffer recess and the flow guide hole is offset from the liquid injection hole (reproduced Fig. 9 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
216
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shi and Seo on claim 11 is maintained.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 2021/0119287 A1; as found in IDS dated 04/09/25); as evidenced by Jung et al. (US 2021/0344074 A1) and Zhou et al. (US 2024/0154218 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-10, 12-14 and 20 above, and further in view of Seo (US 2007/0154784 A1).
As to Claim 11, modified Shi does not specifically disclose the claimed center through hole.
However, Seo teaches of a battery, comprising an insulating plate 140 and an insulating case 190 (plastic components) having a center terminal through hole 191 (Fig. 7 and paragraph [0052-0053]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the parts of the plastic component of Shi to comprise a center terminal through hole because Seo teaches that a battery with reduced cost and simplified assembling can be provided (paragraph [0056]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 09, 2026 with respect to the independent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principle arguments are:
a) Shi does not teach the claimed relationships (claim 1).
b) Shi does not teach the subject matter of original claim 12 (claim 1).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
a) 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. In addition, it is well known in the art to reduce the size of insulating components (and components that do not increase the energy density as discussed in the rejection above. The courts have held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05, II, B. Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that the claimed configuration/shape/design is critical.
b) Shi does teach the claimed side wall relationship as discussed in the rejection above. In addition, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 15-19 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 reasons for allowance previously set forth in the Non-Final rejection mailed on June 10, 2026 stand.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
