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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 12, 2026 in response to the Office Action of February 13, 2026 has been acknowledged and entered.
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.
Claims 1, 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 113285268) (cited by Applicant) in view of Lu, S. et al. “A Primary Study on the Security of Lithium Ion Phosphate Battery and Its Detection Methods”, Journal of Inspection and Quarantine, Vol. 24, No. 06, 20 Dec. 2014 (2014-12-20), pgs 27-28, Fig. 1) (cited by Applicant) and Depa (CN 108712877) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a battery shell integrated analyte detection device, (Figs. 1-3; Abstract) which comprises: a bottom case (10) used for mounting on a skin surface of a user; a sensor (113) assembled on the bottom case for detecting analyte parameter information in a body of the user; a transmitter (12) electrically connected with the sensor for transmitting the analyte parameter information to external equipment; a battery cavity located within the transmitter (12, 121) (See Figs. 2-3; Page 11, last 3 lines, Page 12, lines 1-4, the battery is located within the transmitter 12/transmitter housing 121, which means it needs to be placed in an opening, hence the battery cavity would also be located within the transmitter 12 so that the analyte detection device is integrated with the battery case.)
However, Yang does not specifically teach “wherein the battery cavity comprises a cavity shell, a diaphragm, electrolyte, an anode plate, a cathode plate and two pole ears, the cavity shell comprises an upper cover shell and a lower shell, the lower shell is integrated with a shell of the transmitter, wherein the lower shell is the shell of the transmitter”.
Lu, in a related field of endeavor, teaches (See Fig. 1; Page 1, 2.1 Working Principle of Machine Translation) a lithium iron phosphate battery which includes the positive pole, the negative pole, the electrolyte, the diaphragm, the positive lead, the negative lead, the pole ears, the center terminals, insulating materials, safety valves, sealing rings, power transmitter cylinder (PTC). (Fig. 1; Page 1 of Machine Translation).
Depa, in a related field of endeavor, teaches an analyte detection instrument (Figs. 1, 2A, 2C) comprising a housing (shell 12 with top portion 22 and bottom portion 24) and battery cavity (compartment 37) comprising a cavity shell, the cavity shell comprises an upper cover shell (battery cover 38) and a lower shell (bottom portion 24 of shell 12), the lower shell (24) is integrated with a shell (12) of the transmitter (10), wherein the lower shell (24) is the shell (12) of the transmitter (10). (See Fig. 2C).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the structure of Yang to teach “wherein the battery cavity comprises a cavity shell, a diaphragm, electrolyte, an anode plate, a cathode plate and two pole ears” as taught by Lu, “the cavity shell comprises an upper cover shell and a lower shell, the lower shell is integrated with a shell of the transmitter, wherein the lower shell is the shell of the transmitter” as taught by Depa. Doing so provides a separate upper cover shell which protects the battery and helps keep fluid from getting in the battery.
Regarding claim 5, Yang does not teach “wherein material of the cavity shell material is one of PE, PP, HDPE, PVC, ABS, PMMA, PC, PPS or PU.”
Depa teaches wherein material of the cavity shell material is one of PE, PP, HDPE, PVC, ABS, PMMA, PC, PPS or PU (Page 7, lines 14-16 cavity shell material is formed of plastic or other suitable material).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the structure of Yang to teach “wherein material of the cavity shell material is one of PE, PP, HDPE, PVC, ABS, PMMA, PC, PPS or PU” as taught by Depa. Doing so provides a lightweight biocompatible material to house the device.
Regarding claim 12, Yang teaches a connector (114), which comprises at least two conductive zones and an insulating zone arranged alternately for using as an electrical connection medium for the sensor and the transmitter. (Page 16, lines 19-24).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Lu and Depa, further in view of Ogata (US 20200194749) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Yang as modified does not teach “wherein an electrolyte isolation layer is arranged inside the cavity shell”.
Ogata, in a related field of endeavor, teaches wherein an electrolyte isolation layer is arranged inside the cavity shell (Paragraph [0028] the electrically conductive and thermally conductive material for the housing 105 of the battery cell 100).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the structure of Yang as modified to teach “wherein an electrolyte isolation layer is arranged inside the cavity shell” as taught by Ogata. Doing so provides electrical conductivity or thermal conductivity for the housing. (Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Yang as modified does not teach “wherein the electrolyte isolation layer is made of TPE or PET material”.
Ogata, in a related field of endeavor, teaches wherein the electrolyte isolation layer is made of TPE or PET material. (Paragraph [0028]).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the structure of Yang as modified to teach “wherein the electrolyte isolation layer is made of TPE or PET material” as taught by Ogata. Doing so provides electrical conductivity or thermal conductivity for the housing. (Paragraph [0028]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Lu, Depa, and Ogata, further in view of Yokoyama (WO 2010032484) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, Yang as modified does not teach “wherein a thickness of the electrolyte isolation layer is 300-500um”.
Yokoyama, in a related field of endeavor, teaches (Figs. 4-5) a battery storage unit (12) comprising battery (13) and an isolation layer (16a), wherein a thickness of the electrolyte isolation layer is 300-500um. (Page 6, line 8).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the structure of Yang as modified to teach “wherein a thickness of the electrolyte isolation layer is 300-500um” as taught by Yokoyama. Doing so provides a sufficient thickness for the insulation layer. (Page 6, lines 8-10).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Lu and Depa, further in view of Wolfe (CN 102803947) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Yang as modified does not teach “wherein a connection between the upper cover shell and the lower shell is coated with sealant”.
Wolfe, in a related field of endeavor, teaches an analyte sensor (Fig. 4) comprising a battery (210) in housing (206) wherein a connection between the upper cover shell (214) and the lower shell (216) is coated with sealant (Paragraph [0136] silicone sealant).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the structure of Yang as modified to teach “wherein a connection between the upper cover shell and the lower shell is coated with sealant” as taught by Wolfe. Doing so provides a waterproof seal that prevents moisture in other plastic material. (Paragraph [0136]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Lu and Depa, further in view of Itoi (CN 102549803) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Yang as modified does not teach “wherein the cavity shell is also provided with two through-holes, a first end of a first of the two pole ears is fixedly connected with the anode plate, a first end of a second of the two pole ears is fixedly connected with the cathode plate, and a second end of each of the pole ears is fixedly connected with the cavity shell through one of the through-holes”.
Itoi teaches (Fig. 2) wherein the cavity shell (311) is also provided with two through-holes (See Fig. 2, holes 311), a first end of a first of the two pole ears (See annotated Fig. 2 below; Paragraph [0035]) is fixedly connected with the anode plate (400), a first end of a second of the two pole ears (See annotated Fig. 2 below; Paragraph [0035]) is fixedly connected with the cathode plate (500), and a second end (annotated Fig. 2 below) of each of the pole ears is fixedly connected with the cavity shell through one of the through-holes. (See annotated Fig. 2 below).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the structure of Yang as modified to teach “wherein the cavity shell is also provided with two through-holes, a first end of each of the pole ears is fixedly connected with the anode plate and a second end of each of the pole ears is fixedly connected with the cavity shell through one of the through-holes” as taught by Itoi. Doing so enables an electrical connection between the battery, plates, and housing.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Lu, Depa, and Itoi, further in view of Nobre (US 20200099231) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Yang as modified does not teach “wherein each of the pole ears also comprises a wire, a first end of the wire is fixedly connected with the second end of the pole ear, and a second end of the wire is electrically connected with an internal circuit”.
Nobre, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a charger case for wearable devices comprising a battery (138) wherein each of the pole ears (positive and negative terminals) also comprises a wire (138a, 138b), a first end of the wire is fixedly connected with the second end of the pole ear, and a second end of the wire is electrically connected with an internal circuit (136). (See Fig. 4B; Paragraph [0059]).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the structure of Yang as modified to teach “wherein each of the pole ears also comprises a wire, a first end of the wire is fixedly connected with the second end of the pole ear, and a second end of the wire is electrically connected with an internal circuit” as taught by Nobre. Doing so provides an electrical connection between the battery, plates, and housing.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Lu, Depa, and Itoi, further in view of Yasui (WO 2010098067) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Yang as modified does not teach “wherein the first end of each of the pole ears is fixedly connected with the anode plate or the cathode plate through solder or solder paste.”
Yasui teaches a battery module (Fig. 7B) which comprises a battery unit (240), wherein the first end of each of the pole ears is fixedly connected with the anode plate or the cathode plate through solder or solder paste (Page 10, lines 23-32).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the structure of Yang as modified to teach “wherein the first end of each of the pole ears is fixedly connected with the anode plate or the cathode plate through solder or solder paste” as taught by Yasui. Doing so allows for strong, conductive, and reliable connections between electrical components.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Lu, Depa, Itoi, and Nobre, further in view of Brister (WO 2009035773) (previously cited).
Regarding claims 10-11, Yang as modified Nobre teaches a connection between the second end of each of the pole ears and the one of the through-holes (See Fig. 4B; Paragraph [0059]), but does not teach wherein the connection “is coated with an insulating sealing material” (claim 10) and “wherein material of the insulating sealing material is one of hot melt adhesive or silica gel” (claim 11).
Brister, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a transcutaneous sensor contact assembly (Figs. 4a, 11b) comprising a mounting unit (14) comprising an electronic unit (16) with a contact (28) that fits within the elastomeric sealing portion (36), and forms an electrical connection between the sensor (32) and the electronic device unit (16). (Paragraph [0164]). In some embodiments, the sealing member can extend through an outlet port (126) above or below the plane of the adhesive layer surface, where separator seals such as silica gel are sandwiched between upper and lower sealing layers. (Paragraph [0306]).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the connection of Yang as modified to such that it “is coated with an insulating sealing material” (claim 10) and “wherein material of the insulating sealing material is one of hot melt adhesive or silica gel” (claim 11) as taught by Brister. Doing so allows for secure seal to reduce or eliminate migration of other contaminants. (Paragraph [0306]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 5/12/26, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-12 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the plug 20 of test strip reader 10 of Depa would not be similar as the shell of the transmitter of claim 1, and argues that the battery compartment 37 of Depa is not the shell of the battery inserted inside the compartment 37. This argument is not persuasive.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, as discussed above, Depa teaches an analyte detection instrument (Figs. 1, 2A, 2C) comprising a housing (shell 12 with top portion 22 and bottom portion 24) and battery cavity (compartment 37) comprising a cavity shell, the cavity shell comprises an upper cover shell (battery cover 38) and a lower shell (bottom portion 24 of shell 12), the lower shell (24) is integrated with a shell (12) of the transmitter (10), wherein the lower shell (24) is the shell (12) of the transmitter (10). (See Fig. 2C). Therefore, one skilled in the art would be motivated to integrate the battery shell structure as taught by Yang as modified by Depa to help protect the battery from fluid.
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.
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 Om A. Patel whose telephone number is (571)272-6331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/OM PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights