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 .
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
In particular, Claim 1 recites “the first battery cells are arranged at positions where heat exchange with surroundings is more likely to occur in the battery pack case”, however it is unclear whether “in the battery pack case” means “within the space provided by the battery pack” or “in the material/walls of the battery pack”.
For the purposes of examination, the phrase “in the battery pack case” is interpreted to mean “in the material/walls of the battery pack”.
Claims 2-11 are also rejected as being dependent on Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hideo (JP 2004303456; English translation relied upon, translation obtained from Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 1, Hideo meets the claimed,
A battery pack (Abstract teaches a battery pack), comprising: a battery pack case ([0020] teaches a battery pack case); and first battery cells and second battery cells that are accommodated inside the battery pack case (Abstract teaches two sets of batteries, one with lower internal resistance and one with higher internal resistance. [0044] teaches that there can be multiple batteries with lower internal resistance), wherein compared with the second battery cells, the first battery cells are arranged at positions where heat exchange with surroundings is more likely to occur in the battery pack case (Abstract, [0044] and Fig. 3 teaches that the first battery set is kept on the circumference of the second battery set, towards the walls of the case, and is thus more likely to heat exchange with the battery pack case), it is assumed that the first battery cells each have a capacity C1 and a direct-current impedance R1, wherein X1 = C1*R1, and the second battery cells each have a capacity C2 and a direct-current impedance R2, wherein X2 = C2*R2, and X1 and X2 satisfy: 1.1<= X1/X2 <= 2.0 ([0011] teaches that the batteries are all identical except for the value of the internal resistance of the batteries. [011] teaches that the second battery set has a lower resistance of about 15%, which would lead to an X2 value of 0.85*C. With an X1 value of C, X1/X2 is 1.176).
Regarding Claim 2, Hideo meets the claimed,
The battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the direct-current impedance R1 of the first battery cell and the direct-current impedance R2 of the second battery cell satisfy: 1.0< R1/R2 <= 1.5 ([0011] teaches that the second battery set has a lower resistance of about 15% as compared to the first battery set, which would lead to an R1/R2 value of 1.176)
Regarding Claim 5, Hideo meets the claimed,
The battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the first battery cells and the second battery cells are in series connection or in parallel connection or in series-parallel connection ([0001] teaches that the batteries are connected in series and/or parallel).
Regarding Claim 6, Hideo meets the claimed,
The battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the first battery cells and the second battery cells are arranged inside the battery pack case ([0001] teaches a battery pack with three or more batteries inside; the first battery cells and the second battery cells each comprise electrode terminals ([0046] teaches that the battery cells have positive and negative leads, which means they have electrode terminals), the electrode terminals facing a top wall and/or a bottom wall of the battery pack case ([0046] teaches that the leads are facing both top and bottom walls of the case as the figures are in plan view); and in a top view, the first battery cells are arranged around the second battery cells ([0044], [0046], and Fig. 3 teach that the first battery set are arranged around the second battery set).
Regarding Claim 7, Hideo meets the claimed,
The battery pack according to claim 6, wherein the first battery cells are arranged close to side walls of the battery pack case ([0044], [0046], and Fig. 3 teach that the first battery set are arranged close to the side walls of the battery pack case).
Regarding Claim 8, Hideo meets the claimed,
The battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the first battery cells and the second battery cells are arranged inside the battery pack case ([0001] teaches a battery pack with three or more batteries inside); the first battery cells and the second battery cells each comprise electrode terminals ([0046] teaches that the battery cells have positive and negative leads, which means they have electrode terminals), the electrode terminals facing side walls of the battery pack case ([0046] teaches that the leads are facing walls which can be construed as side walls of the case); and at least part of the first battery cells are arranged on a bottom wall of the battery pack case (Abstract, [0044] and Fig. 3 teaches that the first battery set is kept on the circumference of the second battery set, towards the walls of the case, and in the case that the terminal lead-side walls are side walls, the first battery set are arranged on a bottom wall of the battery case)
Regarding Claim 9, Hideo meets the claimed,
The battery pack according to claim 8, wherein the first battery cells are arranged close to the side walls of the battery pack case (Abstract, [0044] and Fig. 3 teaches that the first battery set is kept on the circumference of the second battery set, towards the walls of the case, and in the case that the terminal lead-side walls are side walls the second battery sets are necessarily near the side walls as the terminal leads are facing the side walls).
Regarding Claim 10, Hideo meets the claimed,
The battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the first battery cells and the second battery cells are battery cells with the same chemical system ([0041] teaches that all the batteries are nickel-metal hydride batteries. [0015] teaches that the batteries are also otherwise identical).
Regarding Claim 11, Hideo meets the claimed,
A power consuming device, comprising the battery pack according to claim 1 ([0002] teaches that battery packs are used as power sources for electric tools).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideo (JP 2004303456; English translation relied upon, translation obtained from Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 3, Hideo doesn’t specifically teach a capacity ratio between first and second battery cells of between 1.0 and 1.15 when the resistance ratio between the first and second battery cells are between 1.0 and 1.2.
However, Hideo teaches that the batteries are identical in all ways except resistance (see [0022]), which means that the capacity ratio is 1.0. In the case where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, there exists a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2144.05). In this case, the capacity ratio of 1.0 as taught by Hideo is substantially close to the capacity ratio of greater than 1.0 as claimed.
Regarding Claim 4, Hideo doesn’t specifically teach a heat capacity ratio between first and second battery cells greater than or equal to 0.10 and less than or equal to 0.99.
However, Hideo teaches that the batteries are identical in all ways except resistance (see [0022]), which means that the heat capacity ratio is 1.0. In the case where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, there exists a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2144.05). In this case, the capacity ratio of 1.0 as taught by Hideo is substantially close to the claimed heat capacity ratio of less than or equal to 0.99.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW Y. HO whose telephone number is (571)842-1342. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 6:00, Mon - Thurs.
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, Xiao S. Zhao can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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.
/A.Y.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights