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 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 11, the phrase “pressure relief mechanism” will be interpreted as an explosion-proof valve, a gas valve, a pressure relief valve, or a safety valve and equivalents thereof (paragraph 69, Applicant’s published application).
Claims 6, 7, and 14, the phrase “protective assembly” will be interpreted as a plurality of protective members and equivalents thereof (paragraph 15, Applicant’s published application). It is noted that the phrase “protective members” is interpreted under 112(f) below.
Claims 7-13, the phrases “protective member”, “protective members”, “first protective members”, “second protective members”, and “edge protective members” will be interpreted as a protective member formed in a strip shape and equivalents thereof (paragraph 95, Applicant’s published application).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, “a plurality of battery cells are provided” should be corrected to “the battery further comprises a plurality of batter cells” for better readability. The phrase “the battery cells” should be corrected to “the plurality of battery cells” for consistent claim terminology.
Regarding claim 13, “the protective members” should be corrected to “the plurality of protective members” for consistent claim terminology.
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 2-15 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.
Regarding claim 2, the term “the battery” is recited, and in claim 1 “a battery” is recited and described to comprise a case. In claim 2 the case is described to comprise a support plate. Thus, it is unclear how “the battery” is fixedly connected to the support plate, as the battery is claimed to comprise the support plate, thus making the battery fixedly connected to itself. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the term “the battery” to be “the battery cell”.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “a single battery cell” does not recite a relationship to the battery cell of claim 1. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the phrase “a single battery cell” to be referring to the battery cell of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the phrases “the pressure relief mechanism” and “the electrode terminals” have insufficient antecedent basis as it is not described that each of the plurality of battery cells have these features. The battery cell of claim 1 is also not defined to be part of the plurality of battery cells of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear whether the phrase “the two edge protective members” limits the number of edge protective members to two.
Regarding claim 11, intervening claim 8 recites edge protective members, first protective members, and second protective members. It is unclear which is being referenced by “the protective members”. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the phrase “the protective members” to refer to all three types of protective members recited in claim 8.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either one of Qi’841 (CN 215680841 U, referencing attached machine translation) or Qi’438 (US 2025/0132438 A1), in view of Fuhr (US 2013/0115493 A1).
Qi’438 is applied in the alternative as the primary reference since Qi’841 qualifies under 102(a)(1), and Qi’438 qualifies under 102(a)(2) with an earlier date. Qi’438 contains similar teachings to Qi’841. Accordingly, only Qi’841 is referenced below, but Qi’438 is applied in the alternative as the primary reference in the same manner.
Regarding claim 1, Qi’841 teaches a battery, comprising: a case, having a top and a bottom opposite to each other in a height direction of the case (figure 1), the bottom being provided with an opening (figure 1); and a battery cell, wherein the battery cell is arranged upside down in the case (figures 2 and 3). Qi’841 also teaches a battery with terminals 12 and 22, where the terminals face the bottom (figure 3). Qi’841 does not teach wherein the battery has an end cap, the end cap is provided with a pressure relief mechanism and electrode terminals, and the end cap and pressure relief mechanism are arranged to face the bottom. As noted above under the “Claim Interpretation” heading, the phrase “pressure relief mechanism” has been interpreted as an explosion-proof valve, a gas valve, a pressure relief valve, or a safety valve, and equivalents thereof.
However, in related art Fuhr teaches a lithium-ion cell with a lid piece 44, terminals 56 and 58, and a vent 52 between the terminals that may act as a release valve and provide a pressure relief feature (paragraph 38; figure 3). Fuhr notes that the vent may have a different geometry and any suitable shape (paragraph 38). Fuhr teaches that the vent simplifies the manufacturing process associated with the lid piece and may result in a smaller, more compact cell (paragraph 38). Fuhr notes that the lid piece and container 42 have features that offer advantages such as structural rigidity and positive polarization (paragraph 35). The vent and lid piece will also face the bottom when configured according to the teachings of Qi’841. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the battery of Qi’841 with the claimed limitations because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Fuhr.
Regarding claim 16, Qi’841 in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 1, and Qi’841 teaches a vehicle that includes the housing and battery cells, suggesting that the battery cells are configured to supply electric energy to the vehicle (paragraphs 2 and 62).
Claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either one of Qi’841 or Qi’438 in view of Fuhr as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Cai (CN 211907555 U, referencing attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, Qi’841 in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 1, and Qi’841 teaches wherein the case comprises side plates (figure 1), but fails to teach wherein the case comprises a support plate, the support plate is arranged at the top, and the battery is fixedly connected to the support plate.
However, in related art Cai teaches a cover plate 108 that is fixedly connected to the battery by way of a handle 107 (paragraph 15; figures 1 and 2). Cai notes that the cover plate fixes the battery pack by squeezing the handle, preventing the battery pack from shaking in the compartment (paragraph 15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the case of Qi’841 with the claimed limitations because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Cai.
Regarding claim 3, Qi’841 in view of Fuhr and Cai teaches the battery of claim 2, and Qi’841 teaches an upper box cover that is equal to the size the opening at the top of the box, and the upper box cover is fixed to the opening by bolts or other fasteners to form a receiving cavity (paragraph 40; figure 1). Qi’841 also teaches side plates that are connected to each other to form a frame structure, suggesting that the upper box cover is fixed to the opening by way of the side plates (figure 1). Although Qi’841 does not recite how the bottom cover is fixed to the side plates, one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in figure 1 the bottom cover can be fixed to the opening in the same way by bolts or other fasteners. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the case of Qi’841 with the claimed limitations because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to create a case with the above noted features in accordance with the teachings of Qi’841.
Regarding claim 6, Qi’841 in view of Fuhr and Cai teaches the battery of claim 3, and Qi’841 teaches a protective assembly (support members 4, figure 1), wherein the protective assembly is arranged between the battery cell and the cover body, protecting the terminals of the battery cell that face the bottom, and as seen in figure 3, any other component that faces the bottom. (paragraph 29). As noted above under the “Claim Interpretation” heading, the phrase “protective assembly” has been interpreted as a plurality of protective members distributed at intervals and equivalents thereof.
Regarding claim 7, Qi’841 in view of Fuhr and Cai teaches the battery of claim 6, and Qi’841 teaches wherein the protective assembly comprises a plurality of protective members (support members 4, figure 1) distributed at intervals in a length direction of the case (figure 1), and a plurality of battery cells are provided (figure 1). Qi’841 also teaches the terminals being located between two adjacent protective members (figures 1-3). Qi’841 as modified by Fuhr naturally provides a pressure relief mechanism that is located between two adjacent protective members, see figure 3 of Fuhr. As noted above under the “Claim Interpretation” heading, the phrases “protective member”, “protective members”, “first protective members”, “second protective members”, and “edge protective members” have been interpreted as a protective member formed in a strip shape and equivalents thereof.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either one of Qi’841 or Qi’438 in view of Fuhr and Cai as applied to claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 above, and further in view of Huan (CN 205846042 U, refencing attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 4, Qi’841 in view of Fuhr and Cai teaches the battery of claim 3, but fail to teach wherein in the height direction, there is a first distance H1 between the end cap of the battery cell and the cover body, the first distance H1 satisfying 2 mm < H1 < 30 mm.
However, in related art Huan teaches that a gap of 20-30 mm is reserved between the battery module assembly and the bottom plate of the box and the top cover plate (paragraphs 20-21). With this gap, any portion of a battery cell including an end cap would be well within the claimed range of 2 mm < H1 < 30 mm. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. Huan notes that the use of a gap allows the weight of the battery module assembly to be supported by other structures rather than the bottom plate, which would result in cost savings as there is no need for stamping (paragraph 30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified battery of Qi’841 with the claimed limitations because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Huan.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either one of Qi’841 or Qi’438 in view of Fuhr, Cai, and Huan as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Tyler (US 2016/0093854 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Qi’841 in view of Fuhr, Cai, and Huan teaches the battery of claim 4, but fails to teach wherein a ratio H1/M of the first distance H1 to the weight M of a single battery cell satisfies 0.2 mm/Kg < H1/M < 50 mm/Kg.
However, in related art Tyler teaches lithium-ion battery cells where the weight of a single battery cell ranges from 0.4 to 0.5 kg (table 4). As described above in the analysis of claim 4, Huan teaches a height range H1 of 20-30 mm, which results in H1/kg ranging from 40 to 75 mm/kg, thus overlapping with the claimed range. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the height to weight ratio in the claimed range because one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to use a known suitable cell weight as evidenced by Tyler, the claimed ratio values naturally flowing from the use of such weight in accordance with the teachings of Huan and Tyler.
Claims 8, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either one of Qi’841 or Qi’438 in view of Fuhr and Cai as applied to claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 above, and further in view of Yan (DE 102015201294 A1, referencing attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Qi’841 in view of Fuhr and Cai teaches the battery of claim 7, and Qi’841 teaches wherein the plurality of protective members comprise first protective members and second protective members (figure 1), and the first protective members and the second protective members are alternately distributed (figure 1). Qi’841 in view of Fuhr and Cai fails to teach wherein the plurality of protective members comprise edge protective members, wherein in the length direction, the edge protective members are arranged at two side edges of an array in which the plurality of battery cells are arranged, and the first protective members and the second protective members are alternately distributed between the two edge protective members.
However, in related art Yan teaches retaining elements 42 that are disposed between two battery cells, and on the edge of a battery cell, where the weight of the battery cell is absorbed by the elements (paragraphs 14 and 41; figure 1). Yan notes that this arrangement allows other structures directly below the battery, which in this case a cooling pad, to avoid bearing the weight of the battery (paragraph 14). With this modification, the first and second protective members will be alternately distributed between edge protective members. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the protective assembly of Qi’841 with the claimed limitations because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Yan.
Regarding claim 11, Qi’841 in view of Fuhr, Cai, and Yan teaches the battery of claim 8, and Fuhr teaches wherein the end cap comprises a functional area and shoulders, wherein in the length direction, the shoulders are located on two sides of the functional area, the functional area is provided with the pressure relief vent and the electrode terminals. Qi’841 teaches wherein the protective members are fixedly connected to an area corresponding to where the shoulders would be positioned (figure 3). See analysis for claim 1 above. Claim 11 is rejection for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 13, Qi’841 in view of Fuhr and Cai teaches the battery of claim 7, and Qi’841 teaches wherein in the height direction, the protective members have an extension height greater than that of the electrode terminals (figure 3).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either one of Qi’841 or Qi’438 in view of Fuhr, Cai, and Yan as applied to claims 8, 11, and 13 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2013/0052514 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Qi’841 in view of Fuhr, Cai, and Yan teaches the battery of claim 11, and Qi’841 teaches wherein in the length direction, a width D2 of the first protective members, and a width D3 of the second protective members satisfy 0.5D4 ≤ D2 ≤ 2D4, and 0.5D4 ≤ D3 ≤ 2D4, specifically D2 is approximately equal to 2D4, and D3 is approximately equal to 2D4 (figures 1 and 3). Qi’841 notes that terminal post insulating ribs 471 and 472 as seen in figure 3 act to reduce the possibility of short circuit caused by contact between the housing 3 and the pole (paragraph 60). It is noted that the support member width is taken to be as the distance from protruding rib 491 to protruding rib 492 (figure 5). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. Qi’841 in view of Fuhr, Cai, and Yan fails to teach wherein a width D1 of the edge protective members satisfy 0.2D4 ≤ D1 ≤ D4.
However, in related art Kim teaches battery cells that can be configured to have different positions of the terminals along the length direction of the cell (figures 1 and 2). Kim also teaches a vent 23 that may serve as a passage way for discharging gas generated inside of the battery cell to the outside (paragraph 50; figures 1 and 2). Kim notes that the position of the terminals may prevent generation of a short caused when a tool or a part fastening a bus bar contacts adjacent terminals, and the position can reduce a distance between the battery cells resulting in an overall slimmer battery module (paragraphs 63-64). As seen in figures 1 and 2 of Kim, the location of the vent is not impacted by the movement of the terminals, thus the modification is in line with the teachings of Fuhr as described for claim 1 above. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have engaged in routine experimentation to select a suitable shoulder width D4 by adjusting the position of a terminal, in which the width D1 of the edge protective members will satisfy 0.2D4 ≤ D1 ≤ D4. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified protective assembly of Qi’841 with the claimed limitations because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a shoulder width that satisfies the claimed range as a matter of routine experimentation to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Kim.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either one of Qi’841 or Qi’438 in view of Fuhr, Cai, and Yan as applied to claims 8, 11, and 13 above, and further in view of Maeda (JP 2021114389 A, referencing attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, Qi’841 in view of Fuhr, Cai, and Yan teaches the battery of claim 8, but fails to teach wherein in a width direction of the case, the first protective members have an extension length greater than that of the second protective members.
However, in related art Maeda teaches reinforcing member protrusions 410 and 420 extending in the length direction of the case, in which reinforcing member protrusion 410 has an extension length greater than that of the reinforcing member protrusion 420 (paragraph 39; figure 2). Maeda notes that depending on the arrangement of the busbar, the reinforcing member protrusion 420 may or may not extend in the length direction of the case (paragraph 40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified protective assembly of Qi’841 with the claimed limitations because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Maeda.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either one of Qi’841 or Qi’438 in view of Fuhr, Cai, and Yan as applied to claims 8, 11, and 13 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 208111536 U, referencing attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 10, Qi’841 in view of Fuhr, Cai, and Yan teaches the battery of claim 8, but fails to teach wherein in the length direction, the first protective members and the second protective members each have a width greater than that of the edge protective members.
However, in related art Liu teaches a support beam 5 displayed in two forms, in which the edge piece has a smaller width in the length direction (paragraph 51; figures 1 and 4). Liu notes that in the first form, the support beams include support blocks which help to reduce the width of the support beam body, which improves the energy density of the battery pack (paragraph 19). When comparing the first and second forms in figures 1 and 4, it is clear that the second form also benefits from the reduced width. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified protective assembly of Qi’841 with the claimed limitations because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Liu.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either one of Qi’841 or Qi’438 in view of Fuhr and Cai as applied to claims 2, 3, 6 and 7 above, and further in view of Ceng (CN 205264774 U, referencing attached machine translation) and Xie (CN 209561515 U, referencing attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 14, Qi’841 in view of Fuhr and Cai teaches the battery of claim 6, but fails to teach the battery further comprising an insulating plate body, wherein the insulating plate body is arranged between the protective assembly and the cover body.
However, in related art Ceng teaches a battery housing comprising a lower insulating sheet 7 that is deposed on the bottom, below the lower buckles 25 which hold and support the battery cells (figure 1). In related art Xie teaches that the use of insulation on the bottom plate prevents insulation failure between the battery module and the bottom plate of the housing, which could lead to serious safety accidents such as short circuits and fires (paragraph 5). As the insulation sheet of Ceng is arranged on the bottom plate below all structural features of the battery casing (figure 1), the protective assembly and case of Qi’841 can be modified accordingly to meet this limitation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified case of Qi’841 with the claimed limitations because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Ceng and Xie.
Regarding claim 15, Qi’841 in view of Fuhr, Cai, Ceng, and Xie teaches the battery of claim 14, but fails to teach wherein the insulating plate body is fixedly connected to the cover body.
However, Ceng teaches a battery housing comprising a lower insulating sheet 7 that is deposed on the bottom, below the lower buckles 25 which hold and support the battery cells (figure 1), where the lower insulating sheet is connected by bolts to the lower cover plate 4 of the housing (paragraph 34). Ceng notes that this is done in order to fix the module in a suitable position on the vehicle body (paragraph 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified case of Qi’841 with the claimed limitations because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Ceng.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of co-pending Application No. 18/813,042 (the ‘042 Application) in view of either one of Qi’841 (CN 215680841 U, referencing attached machine translation) or Qi’438 (US 2025/132438 A1).
As above, Qi’841 and Qi’438 are applied in the alternative. These references have similar teachings. Accordingly, while only Qi’438 is reference below, Qi’841 is applied in the alternative in the same manner.
It is noted that claim 9 of ‘042 is dependent on claims 1-5 of ‘042. Claim 9 of ‘042 teaches a case (claim 9 of ‘042), having a bottom that is provided with an opening (claim 9 of ‘042); and a battery cell (claim 9 of ‘042), wherein the battery cell is arranged upside down in the case with an end cap facing the bottom (claim 9 of ‘042), the end cap is provided with a pressure relief mechanism and electrode terminals (claim 9 of ‘042), and the pressure relief mechanism and the electrode terminals are both arranged to face the bottom (claim 9 of ‘042). Claim 9 of ‘042 fails to teach having a top that is opposite to the bottom in a height direction of the case. It is noted that the definition of the functional language “pressure relief mechanism” is described identically when comparing the specification of this application against the specification of the co-pending application, see paragraph 89 of the published co-pending application.
However, in related art Qi’438 teaches a case with a structure that is made of an upper case cover and a bottom plate that are opposite in a height direction of the case (figure 1). Qi’438 notes the upper case cover is fixed to the opening of the case to form an accommodating cavity which houses batteries (paragraphs 27; figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the case recited in claim 9 of ‘042 to include a top cover with the claimed limitations to achieve the desired structural features in accordance with the teachings of Qi’438.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENAD NAKDALI whose telephone number is (571)270-3286. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00 AM - 4:00 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, Philip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
/R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights