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 .
2. Claims 1-12 are pending in this office action.
Priority
3. 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
4. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted March 1, 2024, and May 2, 2025, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1, 4-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 210200839).
With regard to Claim 1, Zhang et al disclose in Figures 3, 5 and 6, a battery, comprising: a plurality of battery units (1), the plurality of battery units (1) being arranged in a first direction; and a bundling assembly, the bundling assembly comprising a plurality of bundling members, called cable ties (3), and first protective members, called plate body (2); the plurality of bundling members (3) being provided in correspondence with the plurality of battery units (1), and each bundling member (3) being configured to bundle a corresponding battery unit (1); and each first protective member (2) connecting two adjacent bundling members (3) to limit deformation of the bundling members (3) (paragraphs 0036-0038).
With regard to Claim 4, Zhang et al disclose in Figures 3, 5 and 6, wherein each first protective member (2) is arranged on the two adjacent bundling members (3) in a sleeving manner (paragraphs 0036-0038).
With regard to Claim 5, Zhang et al disclose in Figures 3, 5 and 6, wherein the bundling members (3) are rectangular rings, and each first protective member (2) is arranged on portions, close to each other, of the two adjacent bundling members (3) in a sleeving manner (paragraphs 0036-0038).
With regard to Claim 6, Zhang et al disclose in Figures 3, 5 and 6, wherein the plurality of bundling members (3) are located on the same plane, or the two adjacent bundling members (3) are located on different planes (paragraphs 0036-0038).
With regard to Claim 7, Zhang et al disclose in Figures 3, 5 and 6, wherein the two adjacent bundling members (3) are in contact with each other (paragraphs 0036-0038).
With regard to Claim 12, Zhang et al disclose in Figures 3, 5 and 6, an electric device, comprising the battery noted above (paragraph 0004).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 2-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 210200839), as applied to Claims 1, 4-7 and 12 above, and in further view of Kume (US 2013/0017436 A1).
With regard to Claims 2 and 3, Zhang et al. disclose the battery in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the first protective members are insulating members, configured to insultingly isolate the battery units and the bundling members; and, wherein each first protective member is subjected to injection molding on the two adjacent bundling members.
Kume discloses a power source comprising a plurality of battery units (2) made up of a plurality of battery cells (1) with intervening spacers (18) held in fixed positions by fastening components (3) made up of a pair of endplates (4) (considered protective members) disposed at both end planes of the battery cell stack, and fastening bands (5) with ends connected to the end plates (4) to hold the stacked battery cells in a compressed state (paragraph 0057). Kume discloses wherein the endplates (4) are made from a hard plastic (insulating material) that is molded (paragraph 0058). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Zhang et al. to include the first protective members to be insulating members, configured to insultingly isolate the battery units and the bundling members, because Kume teaches that these elements hold the stacked battery cells in a compressed state (paragraph 0057).
The recitation, “configured to insultingly isolate the battery units and the bundling members”, is functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
The recitation, “subjected to injection molding”, is considered a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With regard to Claims 10-11, Zhang et al. disclose the battery in paragraph 7 above, including wherein the bundling assembly further comprises two second protective members, called end plates (8), the two second protective members (8) are disposed on the bundling members (3), located at two ends, of the plurality of bundling members (3), respectively, the second protective members (8) and the first protective members (2) are arranged in the first direction (paragraphs 0036-0038, 0043-0044). Zhang et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the second protective members are insulating members, configured to insulatingly isolate the battery units and the bundling members; and wherein the second protective members are subjected to injection molding on the bundling members.
Kume discloses a power source comprising a plurality of battery units (2) made up of a plurality of battery cells (1) with intervening spacers (18) held in fixed positions by fastening components (3) made up of a pair of endplates (4) (considered protective members) disposed at both end planes of the battery cell stack, and fastening bands (5) with ends connected to the end plates (4) to hold the stacked battery cells in a compressed state (paragraph 0057). Kume discloses wherein the endplates (4) are made from a hard plastic (insulating material) that is molded (paragraph 0058). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Zhang et al. to include the first protective members to be insulating members, configured to insultingly isolate the battery units and the bundling members, because Kume teaches that these elements hold the stacked battery cells in a compressed state (paragraph 0057).
The recitation, “configured to insultingly isolate the battery units and the bundling members”, is functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
The recitation, “subjected to injection molding”, is considered a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
12. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 210200839), as applied to Claims 1, 4-7 and 12 above.
With regard to Claim 8, Zhang et al. disclose the battery in paragraph 7 above, do not specifically wherein each of the battery units comprises a plurality of battery cells arranged in a second direction, and the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange a plurality of battery cells making up each of the battery units in a second direction, and the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction, since it has been held in the art that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI).
With regard to Claim 9, Zhang et al. disclose the battery in paragraph 7 above, do not specifically wherein two bundling assemblies are provided, the two bundling assemblies are spaced apart in a third direction, and the third direction is perpendicular to the second direction and the first direction. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange two bundling assemblies spaced apart in a third direction, and the third direction is perpendicular to the second direction and the first direction, since it has been held in the art that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI).
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM EST.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights