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 9 recites the limitation "the bearing portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “A battery production line characterized by comprising the testing apparatus” but does not recite any further structural features to further narrow claim 19. Claim 19 depends from claim 18 and therefore is must further limit it in some manner. Because claim 19 does not recite any further structural limitation or other further limitation to claim 18, it fails to further limit claim 18.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 – 6 and 12 - 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN115032539 (hereinafter ’539).
As to claim 1, ‘539 discloses a battery testing device configured to test electrode terminals of an incoming battery cell, comprising: a connecting member (40), wherein the connecting member (40) is configured to connect to an external structure (30, Fig. 1, 2); and multiple test members (42), wherein at least one of the test members (42) is slidably connected to the connecting member (40) along a first direction (Fig. 1 – 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
490
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, ‘539 discloses that the at least one of the test members (42) is fitted on the connecting member (40) and is slidable relative to the connecting member (40), (Fig. 1, 4 - 5).
As to claim 3, ‘539 discloses that the battery cell testing probe mechanism further comprises a slide rail mechanism (401), wherein at least one of the test members (42) is slidably connected to the connecting member (40) via the slide rail mechanism (Fig. 1, 4 - 5).
As to claim 4, ‘539 discloses that the slide rail mechanism (401) comprises a guide rail (60, 61) provided on the connecting member (40) and a sliding block (503) provided on the test member (42), wherein the sliding block (503) is slidably connected to the guide rail (60, 61) (Fig. 7 and 8).
As to claim 5, ‘539 discloses that the test member (42) comprises a test body (402) and a probe (42) provided on the test body (402), wherein the test body is slidably connected to the connecting member (40), one end of the probe (42) abuts against a pole of the battery cell (Note Abstract, battery monomers of different specifications can be tested without replacing the testing device), and the other end of the probe is electrically connected to an external testing device (501) (Fig. 5, 7 and 8).
As to claim 6, ‘539 discloses that the test body (402) comprises a body portion (straight portion of element 42) slidably connected to the connecting member (40) and a bearing portion (stepped portion of element 42) provided on the body portion for supporting the probe (42), wherein the bearing portion (stepped portion) and the body portion (straight portion) are disposed in a stepped manner along a second direction, the bearing portion has a first end portion, and the body portion has a second end portion, wherein the first end portion exceeds the second end portion, the probe (42) runs through the first end portion of the bearing portion and extends outside, and the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction (Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
360
740
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 12, ‘539 discloses that the probe (42) is provided in plurality (Fig. 4), and the probes (42) are spaced apart on the test body (402) along a third direction, the third direction being perpendicular to the first direction (Fig. 4).
As to claim 13, ‘539 discloses that the battery cell testing probe mechanism comprises locking structures (402, 404), wherein the locking structure is configured to limit sliding of the test member (42) relative to the connecting member (40), (Fig. 4).
As to claim 14, ‘539 discloses a locking screw (402) threaded into the test member (42), wherein one end of the locking screw (402) abuts against the connecting member (40) (Fig. 2, 4).
As to claim 15, ‘539 discloses that the locking structure comprises a stud (503) threaded into the test member (402), wherein one end of the stud (503) abuts against the connecting member (40), and the other end of the stud (503) does not protrude from surface of the connecting member (40) (Fig. 2, 4).
As to claim 16, ‘539 discloses that a limiting structure (403) provided on the connecting member (40), wherein the limiting structure (403) is configured to limit a sliding stroke of the test member (42) relative to the connecting member (40) (Fig. 2, 3 and 5).
As to claim 17, ‘539 discloses that the limiting structure (403) comprises a limiting block (404) provided at an end portion of the connecting member (40) (Fig. 1, 3, 5 and 6).
As to claim 18, ‘539 discloses a testing apparatus characterized by comprising multiple battery cell testing probe (42) mechanisms according to claim 1 (Fig. 1, 8 and 9; Abstract).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN115032539 (hereinafter ’539).
As to claim 7, ‘539 fails to explicitly disclose that the probe is in soft contact with the pole of the battery cell. However, it would have been within the level of one skilled wherein the probe is in soft contact with the pole of the battery cell as a matter of choice to increase the reusability of the probe and reduce the cost of the parts of the device Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of ‘539 wherein the probe is in soft contact with the pole of the battery cell would increase the reusability of the probe and reduce the cost of the parts of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 – 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 8, the prior art fails to show that the probe comprises a first tube segment, a second tube segment running through the first tube segment, and an elastic member provided inside the first tube segment, wherein one end of the elastic member abuts against an inner wall of the first tube segment, and the other end of the elastic member abuts against an end portion of the second tube segment. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claim allowable over prior art.
Claims 10 - 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Wiegmann et al. (6,229,307) is cited for its disclosure of an electrical connection arrangement and electrical connecting element and rechargeable battery arrangement therefor.
WANG et al. (2023/0349980) is cited for its disclosure of a battery internal resistance detecting device and battery production system.
Sanders (6,696,850) is cited for its disclosure of a contact probe with off-centered back-drilled aperture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REENA AURORA whose telephone number is (571)272-2263. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 5712705628. 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.
/REENA AURORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights