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 .
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.
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.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation, “a set of blister shells, wherein an inner portion of the blister shells are provided with at least one battery limiting cavity, and the battery limiting cavity comprises a battery accommodating cavity and a battery removal cavity that are interconnected” is indefinite.
What is “a set of blister shells”? A set of shells could be a set of cavities or it could be any number of blister films. A “set” has no defined number. It is not clear what is implied by a set of blister shells.
Then structure is claimed that is a part of the blister shells is never associated or tied back to the blister shells.
For example, the limiting protrusions are formed on … “a blister shell”? They are disclosed as such but it is never clear where in space in relation to the blister shells the limiting protrusions are since there are no boundaries on the cavities of the set of shells.
The limitation “first limiting protrusions are distributed on both sides of the battery accommodating cavity,” is indefinite since the shape of the cavity is never defined, what is implied by “both sides”? Does “both sides” mean that the cavity is not circular?
Applicant claims at least one battery limiting cavity then recites “the battery limiting cavity.” It is unclear if “the battery limiting cavity” refers to only one of the at least one or if “the battery limiting cavity” is intended to reference every or each battery limiting cavities. Likewise for other uses of “the” with a structure that is initially defined as a single or a plurality.
Applicant claims the first limiting protrusion is on a side of the battery accommodating cavity. With this in mind, the limitation, “the first supporting protrusion is located on a side of the first limiting protrusion close to the battery removal cavity,” is unclear, because one cannot determine where the sides of the first limiting protrusion are. Are the sides of the first limiting protrusion the same as the sides of the battery accommodating cavity? They are not defined, and a side that is close to the battery removal cavity is not defined since it has not been established where the limiting protrusion is with respect to the battery removal cavity before defining the parts of the limiting protrusion, i.e. the first supporting protrusion, with respect to the battery removal cavity.
The limitation, the top surface of the battery removal cavity comprises a second supporting protrusion… the second supporting protrusion is located on one side of the battery removal cavity” is indefinite. Is the second supporting protrusion on the top surface of the cavity or on the side of the cavity? In addition, the claimed cavities are just spaces since applicant goes on to claim, for example, a shearing protrusion, that is the boundary of the battery removal cavity. In this case, what is the “top surface of the battery removal cavity” if the cavities are just a space. Otherwise, the battery removal cavity and the shearing protrusion are the same structure but with different names.
The limitation, “a width and a height of the battery removal cavity are greater than those of the battery,” is indefinite because the removal cavity is being defined by the battery size but the battery has not been positively recited in the claim. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, any size will define the cavity dimensions.
In claim 2, is the recitation of “at least one shearing protrusion” the same shearing protrusion introduced in claim 1 or a different shearing protrusion? Likewise for the recitation of “at least one first limiting protrusion.”
The relative locations of the cavities of “inside” and “outside” are indefinite (likewise regarding the inside and outside referenced in claim 3). What constitutes inside or outside of either of the covers? In addition, does the limitation, “the battery accommodating cavity comprises a first accommodating cavity arranged inside the outer cover and a second accommodating cavity arranged outside the inner cover” introduce new accommodating cavities or are the accommodating cavities of the limitation referencing the battery limiting cavity and battery accommodating cavity already introduced? It isn’t clear where the additional first and second cavities are.
Regarding claim 7, is “a plurality of battery limiting cavities” different from the cavities introduced in claim 1 or should the claim read “a plurality of the battery limiting cavities” or “the battery limiting cavities”?
Regarding claim 9, the term compression fastening structure is indefinite does not invoke any particular type of fastening structure and has no art recognized structure based on the terms used. What is a compression fastening structure? What is being compressed to provide the function of fastening? There is no means plus function language that allows the structure to be read from the specification. For the purposes of examination, the fastening structures are understood as seen in the figures, two protrusions. There is no clear compression means for any of the fasteners.
The claims not addressed above are rejected since they depend from a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Kuo et al. (US 9783353) is the closest art teaching the enlarged battery removal cavity, see fig. 2. Kuo does not teach the downwardly extending supporting protrusion.
PNG
media_image1.png
642
1200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Other art teaches the cavities and projections – see Gaffney (US 6938775), Dorr (US 9954208) and Schein (US 6889840) but none teach the downward second support protrusions in combination with the other claimed structure. Brindley (US 3995767) is closest to the side limiting structures, see 32, fig. 2.
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799