DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 21 February 2024 and 29 March 2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities. The use of the relative pronoun “that” is discouraged in claims due to the potential ambiguity of the intended referent.
Applicant is encouraged to amend line 2 of the claim to replace the limitation “that includes” with “, the power storage module including”.
Similarly, applicant is encouraged to amend line 7 of the claim to replace the limitation “that includes” with “and including”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Line 6 of the claim recites the limitation “an other”. The limitation should be edited to read: “another”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Line 2 of the claim recites the limitation “the electrodes”. Claim 13 depends on claim 1. Line 1 defines “a plurality of electrodes” (line 3). For the purpose of consistency, line 2 of claim 13 should be edited to read: “the plurality of electrodes”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 a claim limitation is:
“fixing part configured to fix and regulate movement” in claim 1;
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 limitation 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 to avoid it 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 recites 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the restraining part" on line 2. Claim 2 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 defines “a pair of restraining parts” (lines 9-10).
The use of the singular form of the word creates ambiguity as to whether the limitations of claim 2 apply to a specific, but undefined one of the pair of restraining parts or if they apply to both restraining parts. That is, it is unclear whether the first recessed part or first projection part is required to be on both restraining parts or just a specific one of them. As such, the claimed structure is unclear.
Claim 3 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the restraining part" on line 3. Claim 3 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 defines “a pair of restraining parts” (lines 9-10).
The use of the singular form of the word creates ambiguity as to whether the limitations of claim 3 apply to a specific, but undefined one of the pair of restraining parts or if they apply to both restraining parts. That is, it is unclear whether a first hole is required to be formed on both restraining parts or just on a specific one of them. As such, the claimed structure is unclear.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the restraining part" on lines 3-4. Claim 4 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 defines “a pair of restraining parts” (lines 9-10).
The use of the singular form of the word creates ambiguity as to whether the limitations of claim 4 apply to a specific, but undefined one of the pair of restraining parts or if they apply to both restraining parts. That is, it is unclear whether the second recessed part or second projection part is required to be on both restraining parts or just a specific one of them. As such, the claimed structure is unclear.
Claim 13 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the base parts" on line 9. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the electrode" on line 6. Claim 13 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 defines “a plurality of electrodes” (line 3).
The use of the singular form of the word creates ambiguity as to whether the power source connection part is configured to be brought in contact with a specific, but undefined one of the plurality of electrodes or if the intention is for the power source connection part to be configured to be brought in contact with the plurality of electrodes. As such, the claimed structure is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent Publication No. 2018-106850, hereinafter Hayashi. (A machine translation of Hayashi is provided with the current office action).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi teaches a restraining jig (120 and 140).
The restraining jig (120 and 140) is used at the time of manufacturing an energy storage module (12) (paragraph [0046] and figures 6 and 7).
The energy storage module (12) includes a laminate (30). The laminate (30) includes a plurality of electrodes (32) laminated in the z-direction (“first direction”) (paragraph [0030]). The laminate (30) further includes a frame (50, “sealing portion”), which seals an internal space (V) between the plurality of electrodes (32) (paragraphs [0032, 0033]). A liquid injection port (50a, “opening”) is formed in the frame (50, “sealing portion”). The liquid injection port (50a, “opening”) connects an inside and an outside of the internal space (V). The liquid injection port (50a, “opening”) opens in the x-direction (“second direction”) intersecting the z-direction (“first direction”) (paragraph [0042] and figure 3).
The restraining jig (120 and 140) comprises a jig (140, “first unit”). The jig (140, “first unit”) is configured to apply a restraining load in the stacking direction of the laminate (30) (“first direction”) via a pair of restraint plates (141). The pair of restraint plates (141) are disposed at both ends of the laminate (30) in the z-direction (“first direction”) (paragraphs [0044, 0045] and figures 5 and 7).
The restraining jig (120 and 140) further comprises a jig (120, “second unit”). The jig (120, “second unit”) includes a supply pipe (112, “flow channel part”) and a plate-shaped member (124, “base part”) supporting the supply pipe (112, “flow channel part”) (paragraph [0049] and figures 6 and 7). The supply pipe (112, “flow channel part”) is connected to the liquid injection port (50a, “opening”) to communicate with the internal space (V) (paragraph [0046] and figures 6 and 7).
The jig (140, “first unit”) and the jig (120, “second unit”) are separate units and are capable of being attached or detached from each other.
The supply pipe (112, “flow channel part”) is intended to be liquid-tightly connected to the liquid injection port (50a, “opening”) (paragraph [0049]).
It is noted that the current phrasing of the claim does not require that the “fixing part” be a structural element of the claimed restraining jig.
As such, the supply pipe (112, “flow channel part”) is capable of being liquid-tightly connected to the liquid injection port (50a, “opening”) when the plate-shaped member (124, “base part”) is fixed to at least one of the pair of restraint plates (141) by a fixing part configured to fix and regulate movement in the x-direction (“second direction”) of the jig (120, “second unit”) with respect to the jig (140, “first unit”).
It is noted that the instant claims include functional limitations in an apparatus claim. Apparatus claims must be distinguished from the Prior Art in terms of structure rather than function and as long as the prior art contains the structure as recited in the instant claims it will be capable of performing the function. See MPEP 2114. This applies to all grounds of rejections in this office action.
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi’s restraining jig (120 and 140) is capable of functioning with “a fixing part” comprising a first recessed part provided on one of the restraint plates (141) or the plate-shaped member (124, “base part”) and a first projection part provided on another of the restraint plates (141) or the plate-shaped member (124, “base part”), “the fixing part” fixing and regulating movement in the x-direction (“second direction”) of the jig (120, “second unit”) with respect to the jig (140, “first unit”) by engagement of the first recessed part with the first projection part.
Regarding claim 5, Hayashi teaches that the jig (120, “second unit”) includes a packing (116, “pressing part”) provided on the supply pipe (112, “flow channel part”) and configured to be pressed against the laminate (30) to surround the liquid injection port (50a, “opening”) (paragraph [0052] and figure 6).
The jig (120, “second unit”) also includes an attachment (114, “biasing part”) configured to press the packing (116, “pressing part”) against the laminate (30) (paragraphs [0049, 0052] and figure 6).
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi teaches that the supply pipe (112, “flow channel part”) includes a connection part to which a supply path (C1) is coupled in a communicable manner.
Absent a reference point, the term “vertically upward direction” does not have an absolute meaning. The assembly is capable of being rotated such that the supply path (C1) is coupled from a vertically upward direction.
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi teaches that the supply path (C1) is a pipe configured to supply the electrolytic solution (paragraph [0048]). The electrolytic solution is supplied to the internal space (V) via the supply pipe (112, “flow channel part”) (paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi teaches that the supply pipe (112, “flow channel part”) penetrates the plate-shaped member (124, “base part”) (paragraph [0049] and figure 7).
Therefore, plate-shaped member (124, “base part”) includes a “first base part” and a “second base part” that hold and support the supply pipe (112, “flow channel part”) therebetween in the z-direction (“first direction”)
“The first base part” is capable of being fixed to one of the restraint plates (141) by “the fixing part” and “the second base part” is capable of being fixed to another of the restraint plates (141) by “the fixing part” when the plate-shaped member (124, “base part”) is fixed by “the fixing part”.
Regarding claim 9, Hayashi teaches that the supply pipe (112, “flow channel part”) penetrates the plate-shaped member (124, “base part”) (paragraph [0049] and figure 7).
Therefore, plate-shaped member (124, “base part”) supports the supply pipe (112, “flow channel part”) in the z-direction (“first direction”). Absent a reference point, the term “below” does not have an absolute meaning.
“The base part” is capable of being fixed to the restraint plate (141) disposed “above” by “the fixing part” when the plate-shaped member (124, “base part”) is fixed by “the fixing part”.
Regarding claim 11, Hayashi teaches that the supply pipe (112, “flow channel part”) penetrates the plate-shaped member (124, “base part”) (paragraph [0049] and figure 7). Therefore there is an opening (“through window”) formed in the plate-shaped member (124, “base part”) through which the supply pipe (112, “flow channel part”) passes. Visual inspection through the supply pipe (112, “flow channel part”) (and thus through the opening (“through window”) would be capable of recognizing a connection portion between the supply pipe (112, “flow channel part”) and the liquid injection port (50a, “opening”).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent Publication No. 2018-200829, hereinafter Takahashi. (A machine translation of Takahashi is provided with the current office action).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi teaches a device (“jig”) used at the time of manufacturing an energy storage module (12) (paragraphs [0065, 0068, 0070] and figures 5, 6 and 11a).
The energy storage module (12) includes a laminate (30). The laminate (30) includes a plurality of electrodes (32) laminated in the z-direction (“first direction”) (paragraph [0024]). The laminate (30) further includes a resin portion (52, “sealing portion”), which seals an internal space (V) between the plurality of electrodes (32) (paragraph [0026]). A liquid injection port (50a, “opening”) is formed in the resin portion (52, “sealing portion”). The liquid injection port (50a, “opening”) connects an inside and an outside of the internal space (V). The liquid injection port (50a, “opening”) opens in the x-direction (“second direction”) intersecting the z-direction (“first direction”) (paragraph [0032] and figures 3 and 6).
The device (“jig”) comprises a resin portion (54, “first unit”) (paragraphs [0027, 0067]). The resin portion (54, “first unit”) sandwiches the laminate (30) via a pair of flat surfaces disposed at both ends of the laminate (30) in the z-direction (“first direction”) (see Figure 1 below). By virtue of their positioning the pair of flat surfaces are configured to restrain the laminate (30) in the z-direction (“first direction”) and are thus understood to apply a restraining load in the z-direction (“first direction”) to the laminate (30).
The device (“jig”) further comprises a base member (70, “second unit”). The base member (70, “second unit”) includes a communication hole (74, “flow channel part”) and a base part supporting the communication hole (74, “flow channel part”) (paragraphs [0041, 0042] and figures 5 and 6). The communication hole (74, “flow channel part”) is connected to the liquid injection port (50a, “opening”) to communicate with the internal space (V) (paragraph [0042] and figure 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
621
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1 - Illustrating the features considered "restraining parts".)]
The base member (70, “second unit”) is inserted into (“restrained in”) the resin portion (54, “first unit”) and the two cooperate to supply electrolyte and regulate pressure within the energy storage module (12) during manufacturing of the energy storage module (12) (paragraph [0070]). As such, the base member (70, “second unit”) and resin portion (54, “first unit”) together are considered a “restraining jig”.
The resin portion (54, “first unit”) and the base member (70, “second unit”) are separate units and are capable of being attached or detached from each other.
The base part of the base member (70, “second unit”) is fixed to the pair of flat surfaces (“restraining parts”) by portion (72) of the base member (70, “second unit”). Portion (72) is inserted into opening (54a) (paragraph [0041] and figure 6). The combination of portion (72) and opening (54a) is considered an equivalent of the instantly disclosed “fixing part”, because it serves the same purpose of regulating movement of the base member (70, “second unit”) in the x-direction (“second direction”) and fixing base member (70, “second unit”) with respect to the resin portion (54, “first unit”). When the base part of the base member (70, “second unit”) is fixed to the pair of flat surfaces (“restraining parts”), the communication hole (74, “flow channel part”) is liquid-tightly connected to the liquid injection port (50a, “opening”) (paragraphs [0041, 0070]).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi teaches that the “fixing part” is formed of opening (54a, “recessed part”) provided on the pair of flat surfaces (“restraining parts”) and a portion (72, “projection part”) provided on the base part. The “fixing part” fixes and regulates movement in the x-direction (“second direction”) of the base member (70, “second unit”) with respect to the resin portion (54, “first unit”) by engagement of the opening (54a, “recessed part”) with the portion (72, “projection part”).
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi teaches that the “fixing part” includes opening (54a, “recessed part”) formed on the pair of flat surfaces (“restraining parts”) and a portion (72, “projection part”) formed on the base part (paragraph [0041]).
Takahashi teaches that the fixing is accomplished by welding (paragraph [0041]). The bonding material created by the welding is a “connection member” which engages with both the opening (54a, “recessed part”) and the portion (72, “projection part”).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi teaches that the base member (70, “second unit”) is inserted in the opening (54a) (paragraph [0041]). Therefore, surface (71) is a “pressing part”, which is provided on the periphery of the communication hole (74, “flow channel part”) and is pressed against the laminate (30) to surround the liquid injection port (50a, “opening”). The remained of the base member (70, “second unit”) is a biasing part configured to press the surface (71) against the laminate (30).
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi teaches that the communication hole (74, “flow channel part”) penetrates the base part (paragraph [0042] and figure 6).
Therefore, the base part includes a “first base part” and a “second base part” that hold and support the communication hole (74, “flow channel part”) therebetween in the z-direction (“first direction”)
“The first base part” is fixed to one of the flat surfaces (“restraining parts”) by “the fixing part” and “the second base part” is fixed to another of the flat surfaces (“restraining parts”) by “the fixing part” when the base part is fixed by “the fixing part”.
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi teaches that the communication hole (74, “flow channel part”) penetrates the base part (paragraph [0042] and figure 6). Therefore, the base part supports the communication hole (74, “flow channel part”) from below in the z-direction (“first direction”).
The base part is fixed to the pair of flat surfaces (“restraining parts”) including the flat surface (“restraining part”) disposed above in the z-direction (“first direction”).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi teaches that the communication hole (74, “flow channel part”) penetrates the base part (paragraph [0042] and figure 6).
The communication hole (74, “flow channel part”) is itself a “through window” formed in the base part. Visual inspection through the “through window” would be capable of recognizing a connection portion between the communication hole (74, “flow channel part”) and the liquid injection port (50a, “opening”).
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi teaches that the communication hole (74, “flow channel part”) passes through opening (54a) formed on the pair of flat surfaces (“restraining parts”) (figure 6). Through opening (54a) is a “through window”.
Visual inspection through the communication hole (74, “flow channel part”) and thus through opening (54a, “through window”) would be capable of recognizing a connection portion between the communication hole (74, “flow channel part”) and the liquid injection port (50a, “opening”).
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi teaches an electrode plate (34, “first holding part”) configured to hold electrodes (32) of laminate (30) (paragraph [0026] and figure 2).
A second holding part is configured to hold the resin portion (52, “sealing portion”) (Figure 2 below).
The electrode plate (34, “first holding part”) is a power source connection part in contact with an electrode (32) to electrically connect the laminate (30) with an external power source (paragraph [0028]).
The electrode plate (34, “first holding part”) is integrally molded with a flat surface (“restraining part”) of the resin portion (54, “first unit”) (Figure 2 below) – therefore, it is considered formed as part of the “pair of restraining parts”.
The second hold part is formed as part of the “pair of restraining parts” (Figure 2 below).
A thickness in the z-direction (“first direction”) of the second holding part is less than a thickness in the z-direction (“first direction”) of the electrode plate (34, “first holding part”).
PNG
media_image2.png
517
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2 - lllustrating the features considered "first holding part" and "second holding part".)]
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.
Claims 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Publication No. 2018-200829, hereinafter Takahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. 2018-106850, hereinafter Hayashi.
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi teaches that the “fixing part” is formed of opening (54a) formed on the pair of flat surfaces (“restraining parts”) and a portion (72, “projection part”) of the base part.
Opening (54a) is a first hole.
Portion (72, “projection part”) includes communication hole (74). Communication hole (74) is a second hole formed on the base part.
Opening (54a, “first hole”) and communication hole (74, “second hole”) overlap each other in the z-direction (“first direction”) (figure 6).
Takahashi teaches that electrolyte is supplied to the internal space (V) by being injected into communication hole (74, “second hole”) (paragraph [0070]).
Takahashi fails to teach an insertion member configured to be inserted into opening (54a, “first hole”) and communication hole (74, “second hole”).
Hayashi teaches supplying electrolytic solution into an analogous assembly by using a pipe inserted into an opening (paragraphs [0044-0049]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pipe (“insertion member”) inserted into opening (54a, “first hole”) and communication hole (74, “second hole”) to supply electrolyte to Takahashi’s energy storage module (12).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Takahashi teaches that the communication hole (74, “flow channel part”) includes an end (“connection part”) into which electrolyte is injected to be supplied to the internal space (V) via the communication hole (74, “flow channel part”).
Absent a reference point, the term “vertically upward direction” does not have an absolute meaning.
Takahashi does not explicitly teach a pipe coupled to the end (“connection part”).
Hayashi teaches a pipe configured to supply electrolytic solution to a supply pipe (112, “flow channel part”) in an analogous assembly (paragraphs [0044-0049]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pipe to couple to the end (“connection part”) for the purpose of supplying electrolyte to Takahashi’s energy storage module (12).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Publication No. 2018-200829, hereinafter Takahashi.
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi teaches that both flat surface (“restraining parts”) extend in the x-direction (“second direction”) and project from the laminate (30) in the x-direction (“second direction”) (figure 6).
The base part is fixed to both flat surfaces (“restraining parts”).
Both flat surfaces (“restraining parts”) also partially define opening (54a) into which the base member (70, “second unit”) is inserted.
Takahashi fails to teach that one flat surface (“restraining part”) is longer than another of the flat surfaces (“restraining parts”).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the lower of the flat surfaces (“restraining parts”) to be longer for the purpose of better supporting the base member (70, “second unit”) from below.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/LILIA NEDIALKOVA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights