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.
Claims 4-5 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 4 depends on claim 1 and recites “an insulating sheet” in line 1, while claim 1 also recites “an insulating sheet” in line 2. It is unclear if “an insulating sheet” recited in claim 4 is the same as or different from “an insulating sheet” recited in claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected on the same ground as claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 1-3, 6-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Suzuki (US 2014/0141321).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses a frame (or housing body 200, figs. 2 and 4-5) comprising a first guideline (see top partition wall 218, figs. 2 and 4-5) and a second guideline (see partition wall 212, figs. 2 and 4-5). Suzuki shows the first length of the first guideline (218) is different from the second length of the second guideline (212), and the first height of the first guideline (top 218, or the distance from the top partition wall 218 to the bottom of the frame ) is different from the second height of the second guideline (212, or the distance between the partition wall 212 to the bottom of the frame, see figs. 2 and 4-5). Suzuki discloses all the structural limitations of the frame, the reference is deemed to be anticipatory.
Alternatively, Suzuki teaches aligning a cover body (310) having an insulating sheet (360 and 380, figs. 12-13) with the frame (200) via screw holes (260) located near the guidelines (or partition walls 218 and 212, see figs. 12-13). Suzuki does not teach using the guidelines (218 and 212) to guide attachment of the insulating sheet (360/380).
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used/configured the guidelines (or partition walls 218 and 212) to guide attachment of the insulating sheet (360 and 380) and the cover body (310); because Suzuki teaches attaching the insulating sheet (360 and 380) and the cover body (310) via screws at the guidelines (or the partition walls 218 and 212), and such use would involve nothing more than an intended use of the guidelines (or partition walls).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki discloses a frame as in claim 1 above, and teaches the first guideline (218) and the second guideline (212) are disposed on an inner surface of the frame (200) and protrude toward an inner space of the frame (200, see figs. 2 and 4-5).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki discloses a frame as in claim 1 above, and shows the first height of the first guideline (218) is greater than the second height of the second guideline (212), and the first length of the first guideline is greater than the second length of the second guideline (212, see figs. 2 and 4-5).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki discloses a frame as in claim 1 above, and teaches the second guideline (212) is parallel to the first guideline (218, see figs. 2 and 4-5).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki discloses a frame as in claim 1 above, and teaches a difference in height between the first height and the second height is defined in a direction transverse to the first length or second length (see figs. 2 and 4-5).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki discloses a frame as in claim 1 above, and teaches the first guideline (218) and the second guideline (212) constitute a guide group, wherein the guide group is provided in plurality on an edge part of an inner surface of the frame (200) on which the insulating sheet (360 and 380) is configured to attached (see figs. 12-13).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Suzuki disclose a battery pack comprising a battery module (fig. 1-2, 4-5 and 12-13) comprising:
at least one secondary battery (100, figs. 1, 5 and 13); and
a frame (200) configured to accommodate the at least one secondary battery (100) and define an outer periphery (see figs. 1-2, 4-5 and 12-13), wherein the frame (200) comprises:
a first guideline (218, figs. 2 and 4-5) having a first height and a first length as claimed; and
a second guideline (212, figs. 2 and 4-5) having a second height and a second length as claimed.
Suzuki discloses all the structural limitations of the frame, the reference is deemed to be anticipatory.
Alternatively, Suzuki teaches aligning a cover body (310) having an insulating sheet (360 and 380, figs. 12-13) with the frame (200) via screw holes (260) located near the guidelines (or partition walls 218 and 212, see figs. 12-13). Suzuki does not teach using the guidelines (218 and 212) to guide attachment of the insulating sheet (360/380).
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used/configured the guidelines (or partition walls 218 and 212) to guide attachment of the insulating sheet (360 and 380) and the cover body (310); because Suzuki teaches attaching the insulating sheet (360 and 380) and the cover body (310) via screws at the guidelines (or the partition walls 218 and 212), and such use would involve nothing more than an intended use of the guidelines (or partition walls).
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki discloses a battery pack as in claim 11 above, and teaches the first guideline (218) and the second guideline (212) constitute a guide group, wherein the guide group is provided in plurality on an edge of an inner surface of the frame (200) on which the insulating sheet is configured to be attached (see figs. 2, 4-5 and 12-13).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2014/0141321).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki discloses a frame as in claim 1 above, and teaches the insulating sheet (360/380) attached along the first guideline (218), and the insulating portion (380) does not extend beyond the first height (see figs. 12-13).
Suzuki does not explicitly teach arrangement the insulating sheet does not extend beyond the first height.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Suzuki by rearranging the insulating sheet (360/380) such that the insulating sheet (360/380) does not extend beyond the first height; because Suzuki teaches the insulating portion (380) does not extend beyond the first height and such modification is a mere rearrangement of the system parts that would not modify the operation of the system, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki discloses a frame as in claim 4 above, and teaches the insulating sheet covers at least a portion of the second guideline (see figs. 12-13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights