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 June 5, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
The Application filed January 04, 2024 has been received. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-7, 10, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “thinned” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thinned” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what sizes or shapes of grooves read on the claim and which ones do not.
The term “plate-like” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “plate-like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what structures of the body read on the claim and which ones do not.
The term “close” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what sides of the connection piece recess read on “close to the buffer recess”. For purposes of compact prosecution, any rounded corner at a side of the connection piece recesses will read on “close to the buffer recess”.
The terms “away” and “close” in claim 12 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “away” and “close” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to how far away the fire side all has to be from the buffer recess and how close the second side wall has to be from the buffer recess.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the battery according to claim 1" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 is drawn to a plastic component.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 12-14 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 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.
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 12, Shi 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 (Fig. 5).
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_image1.png
216
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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 closest prior arts of record, Shi and Seo, do not specifically disclose, teach, or fairly suggest the claimed battery, comprising: a connection piece and a pole passing through the pole through hole, the connection sheet located at a side of the second side surface of the plastic component and comprising a pole connection segment and a tab connection segment connected thereto, the pole connection segment located at the connection piece recess and fixedly connected to the pole, the tab connection segment extends away from the plastic component, and an angle between the tab connection segment and the pole connection segment is between 70º and 110º (claim 15).
Claims 4-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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, Shi and Seo, do not specifically disclose, teach, or fairly suggest the claimed plastic component, wherein a second side surface has a groove having an outer peripheral groove wall and a groove bottom wall, the outer peripheral groove wall being separated from the outer peripheral surface, and the connection piece recess being formed at the groove bottom wall (claim 4).
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