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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of the South Korean parent Application No. KR10-2023-0104589 (filed on 08/10/2023) was received with the present application.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of the Group-I invention (drawn to a secondary battery reel storage rack and a secondary battery reel storage warehouse comprising said secondary battery reel storage rack) in the reply filed on 07/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 were elected by the applicant as being directed to the elected Group-I invention.
Claims 8-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group-II invention (drawn to a stacker crane for loading/unloading a secondary battery to/from a secondary battery reel storage rack), and there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/10/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities that requires appropriate corrections:
In claim 1, lines 5 and 8, the limitation “a cantilever” should read -- at least one cantilever --. (Examiner suggest amending claim 1 limitations in this manner to improve the clarity of claim 2, which recited the secondary battery reel storage rack having a plurality of cantilevers).
In claim 1, line 8, the limitation “a cover” should read -- at least one cover --. (Examiner suggest amending claim 1 limitations in this manner to improve the clarity of claim 3, which recited the secondary battery reel storage rack having a plurality of covers).
In claim 3, line 2, the limitation “wherein covers” should read -- wherein a plurality of covers --.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rhyne et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2025/0002290 A1 hereinafter referred to as “Rhyne”).
In regards to claim 1, Rhyne teach (Figures 1-10B) a secondary battery reel storage rack (column 142A/142B of the creel system 102) to which a secondary battery reel (packages 106; based on examiners interpretation of the claim limitations, a secondary battery reel is not positively recited within the claim nor is it a part/structural component/feature of the secondary battery reel storage rack; instead, such a secondary battery reel is to be loaded/positioned on the claimed secondary battery reel storage rack, or the claimed secondary battery reel storage rack simply needs to have the capability to receive/support such a secondary battery reel. In this case, the creel system 102 taught by Rhyne can sufficiently receive, support, and/or store a secondary battery reel, in a smiler manner to how the packages 106 are being supported/held by said creel system 102) is loaded for storage, the secondary battery reel storage rack (column 142A/142B of the creel system 102) comprising: a loading column (post 112 of the column 142A) perpendicular to the ground; at least one cantilever (receiver arms 132 of the receiver apparatus 114) protruding parallel to the ground from one side surface of the loading column (outer surface of the post 112) for supporting the loaded secondary battery reel (packages 106); and at least one cover (separators 141) provided below the at least one cantilever (post 112) (see also paragraphs 0054-0080).
In regards to claims 2-3, Rhyne teach all intervening claim limitations a shown above. Rhyne further teach (Figures 1-10B), the secondary battery reel storage rack (column 142A/142B of the creel system 102) comprising a plurality of cantilevers (receiver arms 132 of the receiver apparatus 114) that are provided at set intervals (as clearly illustrated in figures 1-3), and a plurality of covers (separators 141) that are provided to correspond with the plurality of cantilevers (receiver arms 132 of the receiver apparatus 114).
In regards to claim 7, Rhyne teach (Figures 1-10B) a secondary battery reel storage warehouse (environment 100 where the creel system 102 is located) comprising the secondary battery reel storage rack (column 142A/142B of the creel system 102) of claim 1 in a plural number (columns 142A and 142B of the creel system 102) (see also paragraphs 0054-0080).
Claims 1-3 and 7 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoover (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0225203 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Hoover teach (Figures 1-22) a secondary battery reel storage rack (creel assembly 10) to which a secondary battery reel (package PA/PB/PC/PD; based on examiners interpretation of the claim limitations, a secondary battery reel is not positively recited within the claim nor is it a part/structural component/feature of the secondary battery reel storage rack; instead, such a secondary battery reel is to be loaded/positioned on the claimed secondary battery reel storage rack, or the claimed secondary battery reel storage rack simply needs to have the capability to receive/support such a secondary battery reel. In this case, the creel assembly 10 taught by Rhyne can sufficiently receive, support, and/or store multiple secondary battery reels, in a smiler manner to how the packages PA, PB, PC, and PD are being supported/held by said creel assembly 10) is loaded for storage, the secondary battery reel storage rack (creel assembly 10) comprising: a loading column (vertical member 21 of the mounting frame 11) perpendicular to the ground; at least one cantilever (package holder 12A/12B/12C/12D) protruding parallel to the ground from one side surface of the loading column (outer surface of the vertical member 21) for supporting the loaded secondary battery reel (package PA/PB/PC/PD); and at least one cover (horizontal station divider 14A/14B/14C/14D) provided below the at least one cantilever (package holder 12A/12B/12C/12D) (see also paragraphs 0038-0044).
In regards to claims 2-3, Hoover teach all intervening claim limitations a shown above. Hoover further teach (Figures 1-22), the secondary battery reel storage rack (creel assembly 10) comprising a plurality of cantilevers (package holders 12A, 12B, 12C, and 12D of the vertically disposed package stations A, B, C, and D) that are provided at set intervals (as clearly illustrated in figures 1-6 and 8-22), and a plurality of covers (horizontal station dividers 14A, 14B, 14C, and 14D of the vertically disposed package stations A, B, C, and D) that are provided to correspond with the plurality of cantilevers (package holders 12A, 12B, 12C, and 12D).
In regards to claim 7, Hoover teach (Figures 1-22) a secondary battery reel storage warehouse (arrangement of multiple creel assemblies 10 as illustrated in figure 11) comprising the secondary battery reel storage rack (creel assembly 10) of claim 1 in a plural number (figures 11 clearly illustrate, four of the creel assemblies 10 being disposed in a side-by-side configuration) (see also paragraphs 0038-0044).
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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhyne.
In regards to claims 4-5, Rhyne teach all intervening claim limitations a shown above. Yet, Rhyne does not explicitly reveal: the at least one cantilever (receiver arms 132 of the receiver apparatus 114) having a cross-sectional shape in which both ends thereof are bent downward with respect to a center line of a width of the at least one cantilever (receiver arms 132), such that a bending line formed in a longitudinal direction supports a core (cores 107) of the secondary battery reel (packages 106); or the at least one cantilever (receiver arms 132 of the receiver apparatus 114) having a cross-sectional shape in which both ends thereof are bent upward with respect to a center line of a width of the at least one cantilever (receiver arms 132), such that said both ends of the at least one cantilever (receiver arms 132) supports a core (cores 107) of the secondary battery reel (packages 106). On the contrary, the at least one cantilever in the secondary battery reel storage rack proposed by Rhyne, appears to have a circular cross-sectional shape.
However, it would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the circular cross-sectional shaped cantilevers in Rhyne’s secondary battery reel storage rack, with cantilevers that has inverted V-shaped cross-section (where both ends of each cantilever is bent downward with respect to a center line/bending line of said cantilever) or V-shaped cross-section (where both ends of each cantilever is bent upward with respect to a center line/bending line of said cantilever). Providing the secondary battery reel storage rack with inverted V-shaped cross-sectional cantilevers or V-shaped cross-sectional cantilevers, would effectively reduce the overall frictional contact between the outer surface of the cantilevers and the inner core surfaces of the secondary battery reels, because cantilevers having such cross-sectional profiles can only contact the inner core surfaces of the secondary battery reels at the bending line of each said cantilever or via the ends of each said cantilever; thereby facilitating low-friction loading and unloading of the secondary battery reels onto/from the cantilevers (which will be advantageous is minimizing any damage that may be imparted on the cores of the secondary battery reels overtime, due to repeated loading/unloading operations). In addition, the secondary battery reel storage rack with inverted V-shaped cross-sectional cantilevers or V-shaped cross-sectional cantilevers, would essentially decrease the overall weight of each said cantilever; thereby also reducing the overall weight of the secondary battery reel storage rack (which will enable said secondary battery reel storage rack to be easily moved/transported as desired). Furthermore, based on the findings of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), changing the cross-sectional shape of the cantilevers in Rhyne’s secondary battery reel storage rack, would have been a simple/trivial design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)); specially since such an alteration would not have any impact on the overall structure, performance, and/or operative functionality of said secondary battery reel storage rack.
In regards to claim 6, Rhyne teach all intervening claim limitations a shown above. Yet, Rhyne does not explicitly reveal, the at least one cantilever (receiver arms 132 of the receiver apparatus 114) having a cross-sectional shape in which both ends thereof are bent downward, such that a pair of bending lines formed in a longitudinal direction supports a core (cores 107) of the secondary battery reel (packages 106). In fact, the at least one cantilever in the secondary battery reel storage rack proposed by Rhyne, appears to have a circular cross-sectional shape.
Nevertheless, it would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the circular cross-sectional shaped cantilevers in Rhyne’s secondary battery reel storage rack, with cantilevers that has inverted U-shaped cross-section (where both ends of each cantilever is bent downward at a pair of bending lines). Providing the secondary battery reel storage rack with inverted U-shaped cross-sectional cantilevers, would effectively reduce the overall frictional contact between the outer surface of the cantilevers and the inner core surfaces of the secondary battery reels, because cantilevers having such cross-sectional profiles can only contact the inner core surfaces of the secondary battery reels at the bending lines of each said cantilever; thereby facilitating low-friction loading and unloading of the secondary battery reels onto/from the cantilevers (which will be advantageous is minimizing any damage that may be imparted on the cores of the secondary battery reels overtime, due to repeated loading/unloading operations). In addition, the secondary battery reel storage rack with inverted U-shaped cross-sectional cantilevers, would essentially decrease the overall weight of each said cantilever; thereby also reducing the overall weight of the secondary battery reel storage rack (which will enable said secondary battery reel storage rack to be easily moved/transported as desired). Furthermore, based on the findings of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), changing the cross-sectional shape of the cantilevers in Rhyne’s secondary battery reel storage rack, would have been a simple/trivial design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)); specially since such an alteration would not have any impact on the overall structure, performance, and/or operative functionality of said secondary battery reel storage rack.
Claims 4-6 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover.
In regards to claims 4-5, Hoover teach all intervening claim limitations a shown above. Yet, Hoover does not explicitly reveal: the at least one cantilever (package holder 12A/12B/12C/12D) having a cross-sectional shape in which both ends thereof are bent downward with respect to a center line of a width of the at least one cantilever (package holder 12A/12B/12C/12D), such that a bending line formed in a longitudinal direction supports a core of the secondary battery reel (core of the package PA/PB/PC/PD); or the at least one cantilever (package holder 12A/12B/12C/12D) having a cross-sectional shape in which both ends thereof are bent upward with respect to a center line of a width of the at least one cantilever (package holder 12A/12B/12C/12D), such that said both ends of the at least one cantilever (package holder 12A/12B/12C/12D) supports a core of the secondary battery reel (core of the package PA/PB/PC/PD). On the contrary, the at least one cantilever in the secondary battery reel storage rack proposed by Hoover, appears to have a circular cross-sectional shape.
However, it would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the circular cross-sectional shaped cantilevers in Hoover’s secondary battery reel storage rack, with cantilevers that has inverted V-shaped cross-section (where both ends of each cantilever is bent downward with respect to a center line/bending line of said cantilever) or V-shaped cross-section (where both ends of each cantilever is bent upward with respect to a center line/bending line of said cantilever). Providing the secondary battery reel storage rack with inverted V-shaped cross-sectional cantilevers or V-shaped cross-sectional cantilevers, would effectively reduce the overall frictional contact between the outer surface of the cantilevers and the inner core surfaces of the secondary battery reels, because cantilevers having such cross-sectional profiles can only contact the inner core surfaces of the secondary battery reels at the bending line of each said cantilever or via the ends of each said cantilever; thereby facilitating low-friction loading and unloading of the secondary battery reels onto/from the cantilevers (which will be advantageous is minimizing any damage that may be imparted on the cores of the secondary battery reels overtime, due to repeated loading/unloading operations). In addition, the secondary battery reel storage rack with inverted V-shaped cross-sectional cantilevers or V-shaped cross-sectional cantilevers, would essentially decrease the overall weight of each said cantilever; thereby also reducing the overall weight of the secondary battery reel storage rack (which will enable said secondary battery reel storage rack to be easily moved/transported as desired). Furthermore, based on the findings of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), changing the cross-sectional shape of the cantilevers in Hoover’s secondary battery reel storage rack, would have been a simple/trivial design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)); specially since such an alteration would not have any impact on the overall structure, performance, and/or operative functionality of said secondary battery reel storage rack.
In regards to claim 6, Hoover teach all intervening claim limitations a shown above. Yet, Hoover does not explicitly reveal, the at least one cantilever (package holder 12A/12B/12C/12D) having a cross-sectional shape in which both ends thereof are bent downward, such that a pair of bending lines formed in a longitudinal direction supports a core of the secondary battery reel (core of the package PA/PB/PC/PD). In fact, the at least one cantilever in the secondary battery reel storage rack proposed by Hoover, appears to have a circular cross-sectional shape.
Nevertheless, it would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the circular cross-sectional shaped cantilevers in Hoover’s secondary battery reel storage rack, with cantilevers that has inverted U-shaped cross-section (where both ends of each cantilever is bent downward at a pair of bending lines). Providing the secondary battery reel storage rack with inverted U-shaped cross-sectional cantilevers, would effectively reduce the overall frictional contact between the outer surface of the cantilevers and the inner core surfaces of the secondary battery reels, because cantilevers having such cross-sectional profiles can only contact the inner core surfaces of the secondary battery reels at the bending lines of each said cantilever; thereby facilitating low-friction loading and unloading of the secondary battery reels onto/from the cantilevers (which will be advantageous is minimizing any damage that may be imparted on the cores of the secondary battery reels overtime, due to repeated loading/unloading operations). In addition, the secondary battery reel storage rack with inverted U-shaped cross-sectional cantilevers, would essentially decrease the overall weight of each said cantilever; thereby also reducing the overall weight of the secondary battery reel storage rack (which will enable said secondary battery reel storage rack to be easily moved/transported as desired). Furthermore, based on the findings of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), changing the cross-sectional shape of the cantilevers in Hoover’s secondary battery reel storage rack, would have been a simple/trivial design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)); specially since such an alteration would not have any impact on the overall structure, performance, and/or operative functionality of said secondary battery reel storage rack.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See the attached PTO-892 for complete list of pertinent prior art references made of record by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEEN J DIAS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2195. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00AM - 4:30PM, Alternate Fridays.
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, VICTORIA P AUGUSTINE can be reached at (313) 446-4858. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.J.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights