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
In response to the amendment received on February 10, 2026:
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending;
The specification objection set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in light of the amendment;
The claim interpretation set forth in the previous Office Action stands;
The 112 rejection to claims 16-19 stands;
The statutory double patenting rejection set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in light of the amendment;
The non-statutory double patenting rejection set forth in the previous Office Action stands in light of the amendment;
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “restraint surface is configured” and “end plate is configured” in claim 1 as the terms are not generic placeholders. This is further evidenced by structural limitations and specific features in the claims which also do not comply with an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 16-19 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.
Claims 16-19 are unclear as claim 16 recites "a second elastic support d. portion". Neither claim 16, nor claim 1 recite any other elastic support portion. Thus, the recitation of claims 16-19 of a "second elastic support portion" is unclear as to whether or not claims 16-19 define only one elastic support portion as explicitly claimed or two elastic support portions as implied by the term "second". It is noted that claim 7 recites "a first elastic support portion" but that claims 16-19 are not dependent upon claim 7. Clarification as to the number of elastic support portions in claims 16-19 is requested.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,962,027. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
As to instant claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 11,962,027 claims battery, comprising:
a box body, comprising a first wall and a second wall, and the second wall is connected to the first wall and extends upward (see claim 1, ll. 2-4);
a battery module, being arranged in the box body and located above the first wall, the battery module comprises a battery cell arrangement structure and an end plate, the battery cell arrangement structure comprises a plurality of battery cells stacked along a first direction, the end plate is arranged between the second wall and the battery cell arrangement structure, and the end plate is fixedly connected to the battery cell arrangement structure (see claim 1, ll. 5-14); and
wherein a restraint surface is arranged on the second wall, the restraint surface is configured to abut against the end plate to restrict the end plate from moving upward; and the end plate is configured to be capable of moving towards the second wall when the battery cell arrangement structure expands, to provide expansion space for the battery cell arrangement structure (see claim 1, ll. 15-21).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to instant claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 11,962,027 claims the second wall is partially recessed towards a surface of the end plate to form a groove, and an upper side wall of the groove is the restraint surface (see claim 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
86
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to instant claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 11,962,027 claims the end plate is provided with a restraint protrusion, and an upper surface of the restraint protrusion is configured to abut against the restraint surface to restrict the end plate from moving upward (see claim 1, ll. 22-25).
As to instant claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 11,962,027 claims the restraint protrusion extends horizontally towards the second wall (see claim 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
50
488
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to instant claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 11,962,027 claims the restraint protrusion has a gap with the second wall in the first direction when the battery cell arrangement structure is not expanded (see claim 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
82
462
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to instant claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 11,962,027 claims the end plate further comprises an end plate body, the end plate body has a first surface facing the battery cell arrangement structure and a second surface facing away from the battery cell arrangement structure, and the restraint protrusion is arranged on the second surface (see claim 5).
PNG
media_image5.png
130
472
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to instant claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 11,962,027 claims the end plate comprises a first elastic support portion, and the first elastic support portion is configured to be capable of abutting against the second wall and be pressed and deformed by the battery cell arrangement structure when the battery cell arrangement structure expands, to provide the expansion space for the battery cell arrangement structure (see claim 6).
PNG
media_image6.png
152
484
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to instant claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 11,962,027 claims at least a part of the first elastic support portion extends obliquely upward towards the second wall (see claim 7).
PNG
media_image7.png
70
478
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As to instant claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 11,962,027 claims the end plate further comprises an end plate body, the end plate body has a first surface facing the battery cell arrangement structure and a second surface facing away from the battery cell arrangement structure, and the first elastic support portion is arranged on the second surface (see claim 8).
PNG
media_image8.png
134
470
media_image8.png
Greyscale
As to instant claim 11, U.S. Patent No. 11,962,027 claims the end plate is provided with a restraint protrusion, and an upper surface of the restraint protrusion is configured to abut against the restraint surface to restrict the end plate from moving upward, the restraint protrusion is arranged on the second surface, and a height of the first elastic support portion protruding from the second surface is greater than a height of the restraint protrusion protruding from the second surface (see claim 9).
PNG
media_image9.png
182
460
media_image9.png
Greyscale
As to instant claim 12, U.S. Patent No. 11,962,027 claims an orthographic projection of the first elastic support portion on a horizontal plane is a long-strip shape, a surface on which a long side of the long-strip shape is located is connected to the second surface, and a surface on which the other long side of the long-strip shape is located is configured to abut against the second wall (see claim 10).
PNG
media_image10.png
152
472
media_image10.png
Greyscale
As to instant claim 13, U.S. Patent No. 11,962,027 claims there are a plurality of the first elastic support portions, and the plurality of the first elastic support portions are arranged at intervals on the second surface along the up and down direction (see claim 11).
PNG
media_image11.png
86
464
media_image11.png
Greyscale
As to instant claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 11,962,027 claims the box body comprises a pair of second walls, the pair of second walls are arranged opposite to each other along the first direction, and the first elastic support portion abuts against the second wall when the battery cell arrangement structure is not expanded, to implement a positioning of the battery module in the first direction (see claim 12, ll. 1-7).
PNG
media_image12.png
224
476
media_image12.png
Greyscale
As to instant claim 15, U.S. Patent No. 11,962,027 claims the battery module is in interference fit with the box body, and the first elastic support portion is configured to absorb interference magnitude in the first direction by producing elastic deformation (see claim 12, ll. 8-11).
PNG
media_image12.png
224
476
media_image12.png
Greyscale
As to instant claim 16, U.S. Patent No. 11,962,027 claims the box body further comprises a pair of third walls, the pair of third walls are connected to the first wall and extend upward, the pair of third walls are arranged opposite to each other along a second direction, and the second direction intersects the first direction; and the end plate further comprises a second elastic support portion, and the second elastic support portion is configured to abut against the third wall to implement a positioning of the battery module in the second direction (see claim 13).
PNG
media_image13.png
222
478
media_image13.png
Greyscale
As to instant claim 17, U.S. Patent No. 11,962,027 claims the battery module is in interference fit with the box body, and the second elastic support portion is configured to absorb interference magnitude in the second direction by producing elastic deformation (see claim 14).
PNG
media_image14.png
108
454
media_image14.png
Greyscale
As to instant claim 18, U.S. Patent No. 11,962,027 claims the end plate further comprises an end plate body, the second elastic support portion comprises a first section and a second section, the first section extends obliquely upward from the end plate body towards the third wall, the second section extends upward from an end of the first section away from the end plate body, and the second section is configured to abut against the third wall (see claim 16).
PNG
media_image15.png
166
454
media_image15.png
Greyscale
As to instant claim 19, U.S. Patent No. 11,962,027 claims the end plate further comprises an end plate body and a guide portion, the guide portion is located below the second elastic support portion, the guide portion has a guide chamfer, and the guide chamfer is configured to guide when the end plate is loaded in the box body (see claim 15, ll. 1-6).
PNG
media_image16.png
246
478
media_image16.png
Greyscale
As to instant claim 20, U.S. Patent No. 11,962,027 claims a power consuming device, comprising the battery according to claim 1 (see claim 18).
PNG
media_image17.png
42
456
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 may be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejection and, further for claims 16-19 overcome the 112 rejection, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
See item 11d set forth in the previous Office Action, incorporated herein as claim 6 has been amended into claim 1, claim 6 being held to recite allowable subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112 rejection, while Applicant’s remarks attempt to clarify the nature of claims 16-19, the argument does not overcome the rejection as set forth above and in the previous Office Action as the term “second” in the absence of a clear “first” of an element renders the claim indefinite. If the limitation is meant to define only one elastic support portion, then it is suggested that claims 16-19 be amended to remove the term “second” with respect to the elastic support portion of said claims.
Regarding the obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-20, applicant states
PNG
media_image18.png
270
782
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s response fails to be persuasive as it provides no sufficient argument or evidence as to how the non-statutory double patenting rejection is no longer applicable. Applicant’s response fails to point out any non-obvious differences and no Terminal Disclaimer has been filed in the alternative to arguments. As discussed in greater detail above, it is maintained that the invention of claim 1-5 and 7-20 of the instant invention are sufficiently recited in the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,962,027 to the extent that any differences in scope are minor and obvious for at least those reasons discussed above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725