DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13-19, 21-22, 27, 29, 30 and 35 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13-19, 21-22, 27, 29, 30 and 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 requires “a sleeve […] having a generally rectangular and generally uniform cross along its length.” The terms “generally rectangular and generally uniform” are relative terms of degree with no clear metes and bounds. It is unclear what counts as “generally” rectangular or uniform. For example, it is unclear how to interpret these limitations in light of dependent claim 15 which explicitly requires a “concave” profile. The relative terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The terms have been interpreted broadly to refer to a sleeve capable of holding batteries of a given size in a line. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Claim 17 is additionally rejected because it refers to “a second end of the sleeve” and it is unclear whether this is a new term first being introduced or actually refers to the “a second end of the sleeve” introduced in claim 1.
Claim 18 is additionally rejected because it refers to “the first or second protrusion” but lacks antecedent basis for “a second protrusion,” at least because it no longer depends on claim 17. It is further unclear whether the “a tongue” is the same kind of tongue claimed in 13 (implying the same kind of structure at both ends?) or any kind of tongue.
Claim 35 requires “a first protrusion […] approximately in line with or slightly outward of the end of the first major face.” These alternatives are both indefinite because they use relative terms of degree. It is unclear what counts as “approximately in line with” or “slightly outward of” as claimed. The terms “generally rectangular and generally uniform” are also indefinite for substantially the same reasons. The terms have been interpreted broadly to refer to something that does not obviously loop around bend towards the main body.
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, 3, 4, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Begim (US 2018/0215501 to Moshe Begim).
Regarding Claim 1, Begim teaches:
a battery holder comprising a sleeve defining a longitudinal inner passage that is rectangular and uniform (Figs. 2-6)
the sleeve comprising opposing pairs of major and minor faces to maintain batteries of a given size in a single linear array (Figs.)
the sleeve having an end 42 open to receive a battery, in at least some configurations, (Fig. 3) and a second end having a barrier 50 across it to prevent batteries from being pushed out of the holder in the longitudinal direction, the barrier being formed with at least two of the opposed faces (Figs. 2 and 6)
wherein the second end has a first opening (formed by 24) dimensioned to permit a battery to be pushed therethrough with a second region opposed to the first opening (formed by 30) being arranged to permit a user to apply pressure to the battery in order to push it from the holding space (¶ 0025-0029)
PNG
media_image1.png
424
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
748
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Begim teaches:
wherein at the second end of sleeve, two opposed faces of the sleeve extend inwardly to form the barrier (Fig. 6)
Regarding Claim 4, Begim teaches:
wherein the opposed minor faces extend inwardly and join to define a barrier in the form a closed loop at the second end of the sleeve (Fig. 6)
Regarding Claim 19, Begim teaches:
a separator 32 shaped to fit within the passage and pass along the passage between two adjacent batteries (Fig. 4, ¶ 0009)
PNG
media_image3.png
766
200
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22, Begim teaches:
cylindrical batteries wherein a length of the passage between major faces is approximately equal to a diameter of the cylindrical batteries, and a width of the passage between minor faces is a length of the cylindrical battery (Fig. 2)
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Phipps (US 3,625,396 to Cornelius Mark Phipps).
Regarding Claim 35, Phipps teaches:
a battery holder for receiving and storing spent batteries 82 comprising a sleeve 24 with a longitudinal inner passage having a longitudinal axis and having a generally rectangular and generally uniform cross section along its length (Fig. 1, columns 1-2)
PNG
media_image4.png
518
586
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the sleeves comprising opposing major and minor faces for holding used batteries of a given size in a linear array (Fig. 1)
the sleeve having a closed end and a partially open end, the open end comprising a slot 54 formed from protrusions extending into the passages from one of the faces of the sleeves in line with the end of the first major face, retaining batteries that are in the sleeve, which conceals batteries from sight, and preventing them from being withdrawn, but allowing a battery to be pushed into the sleeve (Fig. 1, column 3)
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.
Claims 5, 13-15, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Begim (US 2018/0215501 to Moshe Begim) in view of Kiehne (US 2022/0216559 to Mark Williams Kiehne) and Foreman (US 2007/0051663 to Foreman et al.).
Regarding Claim 5, Begim teaches:
cylindrical cells with an opening and a pressing region
Begim therefore does not teach:
two openings, one through which the battery exits and another opposed to the first through which pressure can be applied to the battery in order to push it out of the first opening
a coin cell holder with minor faces forming the ends and the openings in the major faces
Kiehne, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery holder and dispenser from which cells are moved at one end and inserted at another, teaches reversed “major” and “minor” faces in order to accommodate coin cells (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to modify the holder of Begim to be shaped like that in Kiehne in order to accommodate coin cells rather than cylindrical cells. Where a prior art component has the same function as the instantly claimed component, motivation to alter the shape of the component to any other equally useful shape is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
PNG
media_image5.png
470
678
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Foreman, meanwhile, also from the same field of invention, regarding a battery dispenser, teaches a battery holder/dispenser with a détente mechanism at one end, having a first opening, and a second opening opposite the first that allows a finger to press a battery to eject it past the détente (Fig. 13, ¶ 0062).
PNG
media_image6.png
733
361
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify the battery holder of Begim to have a hole opposite the ejection hole, as taught in Foreman, in order to allow a user to apply pressure directly to a cell to eject it. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, Begim does not explicitly teach:
a tongue extending form the major face adjacent the first to partly obscure the first opening and retain the battery except when deflected by pressure applied to the battery
the tongue “dimensioned and arranged to be deflected in a manner to permit the battery to be displaced”
Kiehne teaches reversed “major” and “minor” faces in order to accommodate coin cells (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to modify the holder of Begim to be shaped like that in Kiehne in order to accommodate coin cells rather than cylindrical cells. Where a prior art component has the same function as the instantly claimed component, motivation to alter the shape of the component to any other equally useful shape is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Foreman teaches a battery holder/dispenser with a détente mechanism at one end, including a projecting “tongue” that partly obscures a first opening, and a second opening opposite the first that allows a finger to press a battery to eject it past the détente’s tongue (Fig. 13, ¶ 0062). It would have been obvious to modify the battery holder of Begim to have a hole opposite the ejection hole, as taught in Foreman, in order to allow a user to apply pressure directly to a cell to eject it past the détente that otherwise secures it. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 15, Begim does not explicitly teach:
a concave face with a central portion extending inwardly to sandwich batteries of a maximum size
Kiehne, however, teaches such a concave face, imposing friction between the face and cell (Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to provide a coin-cell shaped profile with a concave portion, as taught in Kiehne, with the motivation to prevent coin cells in the holder from slipping around.
PNG
media_image7.png
198
466
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Foreman renders obvious:
a protrusion or détente mechanism “towards” the second end of the sleeve, forming and edge that retains the battery under normal conditions but allows it to be pushed in or out of an end opening under pressure
Use of a gating mechanism like that in Foreman would have been obvious in the passage to hold batteries in place except when being pushed deliberately. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). See also US Patent No. 3,809,287 for evidence of ordinary skill in the art in this regard, which teaches a projecting gate 16 function in a battery holder/dispenser in the claimed way (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 21, Begim teaches:
a specific cylindrical cell size
Kiehne renders obvious shaping the holder for a specific button battery cell size as claimed. See above with respect to claim 5. It further would have been obvious to shape the ejection hole to match the ejection profile. Where a prior art component has the same function as the instantly claimed component, motivation to alter the shape of the component to any other equally useful shape is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Begim (US 2018/0215501 to Moshe Begim) in view of Kiehne (US 2022/0216559 to Mark Williams Kiehne) and Foreman (US 2007/0051663 to Foreman et al.), in further view of Elkind (US 2019/0344937 to Elkind et al.).
Regarding Claims 7-9, Begim does not teach:
a separate cover secured by three clips
As discussed with respect to claim 5, above, it would have been obvious to provide a second, pressing opening and a détente mechanism for ejecting coin cells from the modified holder of Begim. It further would have been obvious to provide a cover, such as a child-lock cover, over the second opening to prevent children from ejecting cells. Elkind teaches a cover attached over an opening to an accommodation space with three clips that must be released simultaneously to permit the cover to open (abstract, etc.). Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to provide a child-lock cover with three latches, as taught in Elkind, over the ejection hole to prevent children from ejecting batteries.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Begim (US 2018/0215501 to Moshe Begim) in view of Kiehne (US 2022/0216559 to Mark Williams Kiehne) and Foreman (US 2007/0051663 to Foreman et al.), in further view of Phipps (US 3,625,396 to Cornelius Mark Phipps).
Regarding Claims 16 and 18, Begin and Kiehne teach:
first ends that open up to allow insertion of cells
Phipps, however, teaches a dispenser/holder sleeve for batteries having a closed end and a partially open end, the open end comprising a slot 54 formed from protrusions extending into the passages from one of the faces of the sleeves in line with the end of the first major face, retaining batteries that are in the sleeve, which conceals batteries from sight, and preventing them from being withdrawn, but allowing a battery to be pushed into the sleeve (Fig. 1, column 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide such a protrusion in order to retain the cells under normal conditions but allow the insertion of new cells easily. See also GB 2071618 which teaches a coin cell holder with protrusions at either end that retain cells within but allow for cells to be inserted under deliberate pressure (Figs. 1-3).
PNG
media_image8.png
366
692
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 27, Kiehne renders obvious:
a holder for button cells having a specific diameter
A holder for one coin cell of a given thickness will inherently receive coin cells of a smaller thickness, because the inner passage of greater dimension will necessarily accommodate coin cells of lesser dimension.
Claims 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Begim (US 2018/0215501 to Moshe Begim) in view of Kiehne (US 2022/0216559 to Mark Williams Kiehne) and Foreman (US 2007/0051663 to Foreman et al.), in further view of Wright (US Patent No. 620,527 to W.W. Wright).
Regarding Claims 27 and 29, Begim does not teach:
tongues along the sidewalls to position the coin cells and bias them against a sidewall that also allows the batteries to pass along the holder as new batteries are inserted
Wright, however, directed towards a similar problem, of maintaining coins of different sizes along a dispenser that moves coin along its length, teaches the use of spring tongues to bias the coins in position and prevent smaller coins from moving around and potentially clogging the dispenser (p. 3 line 120). Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, using tongues or biasing members along a dispenser to accommodate differently sized objects was an old and well-established solution to the problem of variance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights