DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted December 11, 2023, November 12, 2024, February 24, 2025, and June 30, 2025, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “to make the movable rod pushing the battery pack via the at least one transmission assembly” is grammatically incorrect and should be “to make the movable rod push. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
6. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun US PG Publication 2021/0028421 in view of Kristofek US PG Publication 2013/0108902.
Regarding Claim 1, Yun discloses a battery box (pressing frames 130, 131/231, 132/232 form a box that houses the battery cells, para 0071) configured to accommodate a battery pack (battery assembly) 100/200, at least one pushing (pressing) assembly comprising a pushing plate (magnet) 272 and pushed plate (pressing plate) 224, wherein the pushing plate 272 is configured to be stacked on one side of the battery pack, the pushed plate 224 is configured to be stacked on one side of the pushing plate 272 that is located farthest away from the battery pack, and a cylinder (cylindrical driver) 260, disposed in the housing and configured to push the pushed plate 224 (see entire disclosure and especially Fig 4; paras 0068-0086).
Yun fails to specifically disclose wherein the pushed plate comprises a frame part and a plurality of rib parts, and the plurality of ribs parts are connected to the frame part and are surrounded by the frame part. However, in the same field of endeavor of battery pack mechanisms to mechanically press a battery, Kristofek discloses wherein a battery pressing plate (end plate) 104a has a ribbed structure, e.g. a frame part and a plurality of rib parts connected to and surrounded by the frame part, because this helps reduce the weight of the plate while allowing it to maintain sufficient rigidity, which would also reduce the weight of the overall battery assembly, which is desirable in the field of battery design (Fig. 1, para 0028). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the pushed plate of Yun such that the pushed plate comprises a frame part and a plurality of rib parts, and the plurality of ribs parts are connected to the frame part and are surrounded by the frame part because Kristofek teaches that this design helps reduce the weight of the plate while allowing it to maintain sufficient rigidity, which would also reduce the weight of the overall battery assembly, which is desirable in the field of battery design.
PNG
media_image1.png
534
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Yun modified by Kristofek discloses wherein the plurality of rib parts of the pushed plate comprises a plurality of first rib parts and a second rib parts which are perpendicular to and connected to one another, wherein the pluralities of first and second rib parts are connected to the frame part and surround by the frame part. See annotated fig below.
PNG
media_image2.png
534
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Yun modified by Kristofek discloses wherein the pushed plate further comprises a plurality of peripheral rib parts (circled in the first annotated figure above), the plurality of peripheral rib parts are spaced apart from one another, the plurality of rib parts connect the plurality of peripheral rib parts and the frame parts, and the frame part surrounds the plurality of peripheral rib parts and the plurality of rib parts (see annotated fig above).
Regarding Claim 4, Yun discloses a configuration wherein the at least one pushing assembly comprises two pushing assemblies 272/224 and 271/221, the pushing plates of the two pushing/assemblies are configurate to be stacked on two opposite sides of the battery pack, respectively, and the cylinder 260 is configured to push the pushed plate of one of the two pushing assemblies (Fig 4, para 0086).
Regarding Claim 5, Yun modified by Kristofek fails to specifically disclose wherein the plurality of rib parts is square. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the rib parts to have any cross sectional shape that would provide the best stability while allowing the pushed plate to be lighter weight since the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 6-16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach, suggest, or render obvious the invention of Claims 6-16.
Independent Claim 6 recites a battery box configured to accommodate a battery pack having a stack of batteries stacked along a stacking direction, the box comprising a housing, at least one cylinder comprising a cylinder body and a movable rod, wherein the cylinder body is disposed in the housing and the movable rod is movably disposed at the cylinder body along a moving direction, at least one transmission assembly configured to connect the movable rod and the battery pack wherein the movable rod is configured to apply a driving force to the at least one transmission assembly to make the movable rod pushing the battery pack via the at least one transmission assembly, wherein the moving direction is non-parallel to the stacking direction. There is no prior art available to teach the claimed structure. The closest prior art is that identified above in the rejection of Claims 1-4 but there is nothing to teach the relationship between the claimed transmission assembly and the rod and cylinder, for example.
Therefore, the reference fails to teach or suggest the particulars of the independent Claim 6, and it’s not obvious to modify these teachings to give the instant claimed invention. Thus none of the prior art of the record, alone or in combination, appears to teach, suggest, or render obvious the invention of independent Claim 6. Since Claims 7-16 depend on Claims6, they are allowable for the same reason.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights