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 § 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 1-20 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “cylinder” in claim 1 appears to be used by the claim to mean “rectangular prism” while the accepted meaning is “Two flat circular ends and one curved side. It has no corners or straight edges.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The disclosure does not show any examples of cylindrical form, nor would it appear to be possible based on the disclosure and limitations of the claims (i.e. defined different widths and forming pole assembly on side surface).
Claims 2-20 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9-10, 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhida et al. (CN 216354488 U).
Regarding claim 1, Zhida teaches a battery shell, comprising a body 113 and two cover plates 111/112, wherein the body is a cylinder structure with two openings respectively at two ends, the body is formed by bending a plate 11 with a strip shape at least once, and two ends of the plate are connected (P50-52; Fig. 1); wherein a width of the plate is B1, a width of the cover plate is B2, and B1 is less than B2; wherein the two cover plates 111/112 respectively block the two openings of the body 113, the body 113 comprises a mounting side surface, and a pole assembly 151/152 is arranged on the mounting side surface (P50-60.73.77-78; Fig. 1-4.7).
Zhida is silent in teaching the body is a cylinder; however, Zhida teaches the shell can be set in any shape according to the needs of the user (P50-51).
Therefore, in the absence of new or unexpected results for which objective evidence commensurate in scope with the claim is offered, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the body as a cylinder based on design needs, such as space. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144.04
Regarding claim 4, Zhida teaches a pole hole, or lead out port 158 is provided on the plate 113, and the pole hole 158 is configured for mounting the pole assembly 151/152 (P73.77-78; Fig. 1-4.7).
Regarding claim 5, Zhida teaches a mounting groove, or top positioning groove 118 is provided on a side surface of the body 113 close to the cover plate 111/112 in a recessed manner, and the cover plate is embedded in the mounting groove 118/119 (P60; Fig. 10-12).
Regarding claim 6, Zhida teaches the plate 11 comprises a first end and a second end, or head and tail, and the first end is connected and welded to the second end (P49-50).
Regarding claim 9, Zhida teaches the plate 11 comprises a first end and a second end, or head and tail, and the first end is connected and welded to the second end (P49-50).
Zhida is silent in teaching a position for connecting the first end and the second end is located on a side surface of the body; however, given that there are only two possible configurations for the welding of the first and second end, at either a side surface or a corner, one of ordinary skill in the art, while welding the ends together, could easily have applied either of these two positions to have the predictable results of connecting the first end and second end, and in doing so connect the first and second end at a side surface. When there is motivation to solve a problem and there are a finite number of predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. MPEP 2143 E The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Regarding claim 10, Zhida teaches a battery, comprising a core 16 and the battery shell of claim 1, wherein the battery shell is provided with an accommodating cavity, and the core 16 is arranged in the accommodating cavity (P79; Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, Zhida teaches a pole hole, or lead out port 158 is provided on the plate 113, and the pole hole 158 is configured for mounting the pole assembly 151/152 (P73.77-78; Fig. 1-4.7).
Regarding claim 14, Zhida teaches a mounting groove, or top positioning groove 118 is provided on a side surface of the body 113 close to the cover plate 111/112 in a recessed manner, and the cover plate is embedded in the mounting groove 118/119 (P60; Fig. 10-12).
Regarding claim 15, Zhida teaches the plate 11 comprises a first end and a second end, or head and tail, and the first end is connected and welded to the second end (P49-50)
Regarding claim 18, Zhida teaches the plate 11 comprises a first end and a second end, or head and tail, and the first end is connected and welded to the second end (P49-50).
Zhida is silent in teaching a position for connecting the first end and the second end is located on a side surface of the body; however, given that there are only two possible configurations for the welding of the first and second end, at either a side surface or a corner, one of ordinary skill in the art, while welding the ends together, could easily have applied either of these two positions to have the predictable results of connecting the first end and second end, and in doing so connect the first and second end at a side surface. When there is motivation to solve a problem and there are a finite number of predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. MPEP 2143 E The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Regarding claim 19, Zhida teaches the plate 11 comprises a first end and a second end, or head and tail, and the first end is connected and welded to the second end (P49-50).
Zhida is silent in teaching a position for welding the first end and the second end is located at a corner of the body however, given that there are only two possible configurations for the welding of the first and second end, at either a side surface or a corner, one of ordinary skill in the art, while welding the ends together, could easily have applied either of these two positions to have the predictable results of connecting the first end and second end, and in doing so connect the first and second end at a corner of the body. When there is motivation to solve a problem and there are a finite number of predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. MPEP 2143 E The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Regarding claim 20, Zhida teaches the plate 11 comprises a first end and a second end, or head and tail, and the first end is connected and welded to the second end (P49-50).
Zhida is silent in teaching a position for welding the first end and the second end is located at a corner of the body however, given that there are only two possible configurations for the welding of the first and second end, at either a side surface or a corner, one of ordinary skill in the art, while welding the ends together, could easily have applied either of these two positions to have the predictable results of connecting the first end and second end, and in doing so connect the first and second end at a corner of the body. When there is motivation to solve a problem and there are a finite number of predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. MPEP 2143 E The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhida as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Kogure (US 20110250486).
Regarding claim 2, Zhida teaches a mounting groove, or top positioning groove 118 is provided on a side surface of the body 113 (that may be interpreted as inner) close to the cover plate 111/112 in a recessed manner, and the cover plate is embedded in the mounting groove 118/119, but that any positioning may be used (P60; Fig. 10-12).
Zhida is silent in teaching an inner side surface of the body is provided with a groove, and the length of the groove extends along a length side of the plate; however, Kogure, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches a battery case (P71-72). An inner side surface of the body is provided with a groove, or retainer walls, and a length of the groove, or retainer walls, extends along a length side of the plate, to hold the battery centered in place in the case to prevent misalignment and failure (P75-76.90-96; Fig. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide the inner surface of Zhida with a groove, extending along a length side of the plate, as taught by Kogure, to prevent failure and maintain placement of the battery. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144 The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Zhida in view of Kogure teaches a plurality of grooves is provided, and adjacent grooves are spaced along a width side of the plate (P75-76.90-96; Fig. 1-3). Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI B The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhida as applied to at least claim 6 above, and further in view of Kano (US 20170291502).
Regarding claim 7, Zhida teaches the plate 11 comprises a first end and a second end, or head and tail, and the first end is connected and welded to the second end and welding connection methods are not limited and teaches a method of joining surfaces using grooves (P49-50.60.82).
Zhida is silent in teaching how the ends are connected, or a through hole is provided on the first end, a fixing block is arranged on a side surface of the second end close to the first end in a protruding manner, and the fixing block is inserted into the through hole.
However, Kano, related to a battery housing, teaches that joining two ends by using grooves or providing a through hole in a first end and a fixing block protruding from the second end, where the fixing block is inserted into the through hole, allows members to stay connected and impact to be absorbed (P123-142; Fig. 19-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have a through hole provided on the first end of Zhida, a fixing block arranged on a side surface of the second end close to the first end in a protruding manner, and the fixing block is inserted into the through hole, as taught by Kano, to provide a case to maintain stability even with impact. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhida as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20160204392).
Regarding claim 8, Zhida teaches the plate 11 comprises a first end and a second end, or head and tail, and the first end is connected and welded to the second end and welding connection methods are not limited (P49-50.60.82)
Zhida is silent in teaching the first end is provided with an insertion groove, the second end is provided with an insertion block, a shape of the insertion block is same as a shape of the insertion groove, and the insertion block is inserted into the insertion groove; however, Kim, in a similar field of endeavor related to teaching forming a battery case via welding (P21-25), teaches providing a first end with an insertion groove 120/130 and a second end with an insertion block 120/130 a shape of the insertion block 120/130 is same as a shape of the insertion groove 120/130, and the insertion block is inserted into the insertion groove as a method of efficiently and effectively welding a shell together to hold a battery (P64-65; Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to weld the first end and second end of Zhida together by providing the first end with an insertion groove and the second end with an insertion block that are combined, as taught by Kim, to effectively seal the shell. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhida as applied to at least claim 10 above, and further in view of Kogure (US 20110250486).
Regarding claim 11, Zhida teaches a mounting groove, or top positioning groove 118 is provided on a side surface of the body 113 (that may be interpreted as inner) close to the cover plate 111/112 in a recessed manner, and the cover plate is embedded in the mounting groove 118/119, but that any positioning may be used (P60; Fig. 10-12).
Zhida is silent in teaching an inner side surface of the body is provided with a groove, and the length of the groove extends along a length side of the plate; however, Kogure, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches a battery case (P71-72). An inner side surface of the body is provided with a groove, or retainer walls, and a length of the groove, or retainer walls, extends along a length side of the plate, to hold the battery centered in place in the case to prevent misalignment and failure (P75-76.90-96; Fig. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide the inner surface of Zhida with a groove, extending along a length side of the plate, as taught by Kogure, to prevent failure and maintain placement of the battery. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144 The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Zhida in view of Kogure teaches a plurality of grooves is provided, and adjacent grooves are spaced along a width side of the plate (P75-76.90-96; Fig. 1-3). Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI B The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhida as applied to at least claim 15 above, and further in view of Kano (US 20170291502).
Regarding claim 16, Zhida teaches the plate 11 comprises a first end and a second end, or head and tail, and the first end is connected and welded to the second end and welding connection methods are not limited and teaches a method of joining surfaces using grooves (P49-50.60.82).
Zhida is silent in teaching how the ends are connected, or a through hole is provided on the first end, a fixing block is arranged on a side surface of the second end close to the first end in a protruding manner, and the fixing block is inserted into the through hole.
However, Kano, related to a battery housing, teaches that joining two ends by using grooves or providing a through hole in a first end and a fixing block protruding from the second end, where the fixing block is inserted into the through hole, allows members to stay connected and impact to be absorbed (P123-142; Fig. 19-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have a through hole provided on the first end of Zhida, a fixing block arranged on a side surface of the second end close to the first end in a protruding manner, and the fixing block is inserted into the through hole, as taught by Kano, to provide a case to maintain stability even with impact. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhida as applied to at least claim 10 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20160204392).
Regarding claim 17, Zhida teaches the plate 11 comprises a first end and a second end, or head and tail, and the first end is connected and welded to the second end and welding connection methods are not limited (P49-50.60.82)
Zhida is silent in teaching the first end is provided with an insertion groove, the second end is provided with an insertion block, a shape of the insertion block is same as a shape of the insertion groove, and the insertion block is inserted into the insertion groove; however, Kim, in a similar field of endeavor related to teaching forming a battery case via welding (P21-25), teaches providing a first end with an insertion groove 120/130 and a second end with an insertion block 120/130 a shape of the insertion block 120/130 is same as a shape of the insertion groove 120/130, and the insertion block is inserted into the insertion groove as a method of efficiently and effectively welding a shell together to hold a battery (P64-65; Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to weld the first end and second end of Zhida together by providing the first end with an insertion groove and the second end with an insertion block that are combined, as taught by Kim, to effectively seal the shell. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
