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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2 April 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.84(q) because reference characters exist which neither have an associated lead line or indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake. MPEP 608.02 V. See at least reference character 100.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with C.F.R 1.84(t) because the sheets of drawings should be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, within the sight as defined in paragraph (g) of this section. These numbers, if present, must be placed in the middle of the top of the sheet, but not in the margin. The numbers can be placed on the right-hand side if the drawing extends too close to the middle of the top edge of the usable surface. The drawing sheet numbering must be clear and larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion. The number of each sheet should be shown by two Arabic numerals placed on either side of an oblique line, with the first being the sheet number and the second being the total number of sheets of drawings, with no other marking MPEP 608.02 V.
The drawings are objected to for failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (p)(3) because numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm (1/8 inch) in height. MPEP 608.02 V.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with C.F.R 1.84(h)(3) because the plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight. Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. The hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way. MPEP 608.02 V. The hatching of juxtaposed different elements in figures and 4 are not angled in different ways. The arrows of lines A-A’ and B-B’ do not correctly indicate the direction of sight.
The drawings are objected to because reference character 30 of figure 1A does not indicate the polarity marking part as disclosed as these are not visible in figure 1A.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: d3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation of claim 5 of “a through-hole defined in a central portion oof the cell seating part to view the lower-stage battery cell tray in a stacking direction of a plurality of the battery cell tray in multiple stages” fails to comply with the written description requirement. From the original disclosure the “battery cell tray may further include a through-hole for detecting the battery cell, which is defined in a central portion of the cell seating part to visually confirm whether the battery cell is accommodated in the lower-stage battery cell tray in the stacking direction”. The original specification makes no mention of viewing a lower-stage battery cell tray through a through-hole in a stacking direction of a plurality of battery cell trays. Further, if battery cells were accommodated in a stack of battery cells then one would view a battery cell when looking through a through-hole in the stacking direction. In the case where battery cells were not accommodated in a stack of battery cell trays, one could not view a lower-stage battery cell when looking through a through-hole in the stacking direction as each battery cell tray has through-holes. Said another way, the through-holes of stacked battery cells are axial aligned such that one’s sight, when looking through the through-hole of an upper-stage battery cell tray in a stacking direction, would see through the through-hole of a lower-stage battery cell tray and view whatever was below the lower-stage battery cell tray.
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 1-8 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation at least one cell seating part, and the claim also recites the cell seating part which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The limitation of claim 1 that “an inner wall is seated in a recess part in which the inner wall is accommodated” is led to be indefinite. It is unclear if “an inner wall” is a newly recited structure or refers back to the inner wall of the edge part. It is unclear if “the inner wall” refers back to “an inner wall” or the inner wall of the edge part. Further, it is unclear if claim 1 is drawn to the sub-combination of a battery cell tray only, for use with some additional battery cell tray, or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of multiple battery cell trays. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (note claim 1 line 1, for example), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitation on lines 14-15, requiring the inner wall to be seated in a recess part in which the inner wall is accommodated). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, any additional battery tray is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to any additional battery tray are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim 1 is required. From the original disclosure “an inner wall of an upper-stage battery cell tray is seated in a recess part in which the inner wall is accommodated” and “an inner bent corner part 114 is provided with a recess part 115 having a width greater than that of the inner wall 112”. This recess part 115 can be seen in figure 3 in which the inner wall 112 of a distinct battery cell tray is seated in the recess part 115. In light of the original disclosure and for the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as if it read “a recess part configured to seat and accommodate an inner wall of a second battery cell tray”.
Claim 2 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 2 is drawn to the sub-combination of a battery cell tray only, for use with some lower-stage battery cell tray, or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of a battery cell tray and lower-stage battery cell tray. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (note claim 2 line 1, for example), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitation on lines 9-10, requiring the leg part of the battery cell tray be seated inside an edge protrusion of a lower-stage battery cell tray). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the lower-stage battery cell tray is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to the lower-stage battery cell tray are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim 2 is required.
Claim 2 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if “the leg part” of line 10 limits only a single leg part of the plurality of cylindrical support parts or limits each of the leg parts of the plurality of cylindrical support parts. Claim 2 requires a plurality of leg parts as each of the cylindrical support part of the plurality of cylindrical support parts has a leg part. Examiner suggests amending lines 10-11 to “each leg part of the battery cell tray is configured to be seated inside respective edge protrusions of a lower-stage battery cell tray”.
Claim 4 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 4 is drawn to the sub-combination of a battery cell tray only, for use with some lower-stage battery cell tray, or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of a battery cell tray and lower-stage battery cell tray. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (note claim 4 line 1, for example), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitation on lines 1-3, requiring surfaces of the upper-stage battery cell tray and the lower-stage battery cell tray not be in contact with each other except for the edge part and the cylindrical support parts). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the lower-stage battery cell tray is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to the lower-stage battery cell tray are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim 4 is required.
Claim 5 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if “a through-hole defined in a central portion of the cell seating part” limits only a single cell seating part or if each cell seating part is further limited to have a respective through-hole defined therein. As claim 5 depends from claim 2, plural cell seating parts are required by claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 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.
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections in paragraph 2 of office action dated 2 October 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 2 April 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in paragraphs 11-13 and 16-17 of office action dated 2 October 2025 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 2 April 2026.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571)270-5531. 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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights