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.
Claims 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "provided between the batteries adjacent to each other" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the batteries” in the claim. It is unclear which of “a plurality of stacked batteries” Applicant is referring to. For the purpose of this Office Action, the claim limitation is being read as, “provided between at least two of the plurality of stacked batteries adjacent to each other”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "along a stacking direction of the battery" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the battery” in the claim. It is unclear if Applicant is referring to “a battery pack”, one of the “a plurality of stacked batteries”, one of “at least two of the plurality of stacked batteries adjacent to each other”, or otherwise. For the purpose of this Office Action, the claim limitation is being read as, “along a stacking direction of the plurality of stacked batteries”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the adjacent batteries" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if Applicant is referring to the “a plurality of stacked batteries”, “at least two of the plurality of stacked batteries adjacent to each other”, or otherwise. For the purpose of this Office Action, the claim limitation is being read as, “the at least two of the plurality of stacked batteries adjacent to each other” as is reasonable in light of [0017] of the instant specification.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a holding member which holds the plurality of batteries" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the plurality of batteries” in the claim. It is unclear whether Applicant is referring to “a plurality of stacked batteries”, “at least two of the plurality of stacked batteries adjacent to each other” or otherwise. For the purpose of this Office Action, the claim limitation is being read as, “a holding member which holds the plurality of stacked batteries”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a convex portion projecting from the battery” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the battery”. It is unclear whether Applicant is referring to “a battery pack”, “a plurality of stacked batteries”, one of “a plurality of stacked batteries”, one of “at least two of the plurality of stacked batteries adjacent to each other” or otherwise. For the purpose of this Office Action, the claim limitation is being read as, “convex portion projecting from at least one of the plurality of stacked batteries” as is reasonable in light of [0106] of this instant specification.
Claims 2-6 are similarly rejected as being dependent from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “in a direction approaching the battery” in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the battery” in this claim. It is unclear whether Applicant is referring to “a battery pack”, “a plurality of stacked batteries”, one of “a plurality of stacked batteries”, one of “at least two of the plurality of stacked batteries adjacent to each other” or otherwise. For the purpose of this Office Action, the claim limitation is being read as, “in a direction approaching the at least one of the plurality of stacked batteries”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the convex portion of the holding member” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether Applicant is referring to “a protrusion projecting in a direction approaching the battery”, some other different yet unclaimed “convex portion of the holding member”, “the accommodating portion” or otherwise. For the purpose of this Office Action, the claim limitation is read as, “the accommodating portion of the holding member” as is reasonable in light of [0040] of the instant specification.
Claims 4-6 are similarly rejected as being dependent from claim 2.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the holding member projects inward of the battery to from an outer edge of the battery” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the battery” in the claim. It is unclear whether Applicant is referring to “a battery pack”, “a plurality of stacked batteries”, one of “a plurality of stacked batteries”, one of “at least two of the plurality of stacked batteries adjacent to each other” or otherwise. For the purpose of this Office Action, the claim limitation is being read as, “the holding member projects inward of the battery pack to an outer edge of the battery pack”.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naoya et al. (JP2017174831A, refer to patent equivalent JP6469768B2 Examiner machine translation for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Naoya discloses a battery pack (i.e. battery module, [0010]) comprising:
a plurality of stacked batteries (i.e. battery block in which plurality of prismatic battery cells are arranged side by side, [0014], Fig. 2, 1 and 8);
a spacer (i.e. cell holder, [0014], Fig. 2 and 4, 2, ) which is provided between at least two of the plurality of stacked batteries adjacent to each other along a stacking direction of the plurality of stacked batteries (Fig. 2) and holds the at least two of the plurality of stacked batteries adjacent to each other (i.e. cell holder configured to hold battery cell, interposed between two battery cells, [0023], Fig. 2, 2); and
a holding member (i.e. side plate, Fig. 1 and 2, 4) which holds the plurality of stacked batteries along the stacking direction as shown in Annotated Naoya figure 2 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
804
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Naoya Fig. 2
Naoya further discloses wherein the spacer includes a convex portion ([0033], Fig. 4 and 6, 26) projecting from at least one of the plurality of stacked batteries toward the holding member (i.e. side plate, Fig. 5-6, 4 and 42); and the holding member includes an accommodating portion having a recessed depression to accommodate the convex portion (i.e. fitting concave portion, [0033], Fig. 6, 43), as shown in annotated Naoya figure 6 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
643
848
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Naoya Annotated Fig. 6
Regarding claim 2, Naoya discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Naoya further discloses the holding member includes a protrusion projecting in a direction approaching at least one of the plurality of stacked batteries, as shown in annotated Naoya Fig. 5 below.
PNG
media_image3.png
510
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Naoya Fig. 5
Naoya further discloses the convex portion of the spacer and the accommodating portion of the holding member are in contact with each other along a direction intersecting the stacking direction, as shown in annotated Naoya Fig. 5 below.
PNG
media_image4.png
947
1181
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Naoya Fig. 5
Regarding claim 3, Naoya discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Naoya further discloses wherein the accommodating portion is formed in a U shape, as shown in annotated Naoya Fig. 6.
PNG
media_image5.png
530
574
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Naoya Fig. 6
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Naoya discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Naoya further discloses wherein the spacer includes an attachment portion which is open towards the holding member and includes a recessed depression to which the protrusion of the holding member is attached, as claimed in claim 4, and as shown in Annotated Naoya figures 4 and 6 below.
Naoya further discloses the attachment portion is formed in a U-shape, as claimed in claim 6, and shown in Annotated Naoya figures 4 and 6 below.
PNG
media_image6.png
590
1243
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotate Naoya Fig. 4 (left) and Fig. 6 (right)
Regarding claim 5, Naoya further discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Naoya further discloses a distal end of the protrusion of the holding member projects inward of the battery pack from an outer edge of the battery pack, as shown in annotated Naoya figure 5 below.
PNG
media_image7.png
455
572
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Naoya Fig. 6
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights