CTNF 19/029,644 CTNF 80891 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano (US 2015/0222131 A1) in view of AT 512000 B1 (to Klammler et al.) – translation attached and relied upon below . With respect to claims 1-2 , Kano teaches a water-resistant battery pack (para. [0059]) comprising: an outer housing (Figure 1, 10b); a controller (Figure 22, 209) operable to control an operation of the battery pack (208) (para. [0188]-[0189]); a terminal operable to connect to an electrical device for power transfer (para. [0012], [0044], [0070], [0077]); and a cell module (Figure 1, 17) within the outer housing (10b), the cell module (17) including: a module housing (18a & 18b), at least one battery cell (16a & 16b) supported by the module housing (18a & 18b) and including a cell header/(battery cell top or bottom end), a water-resistant ring (21a) provided at the cell header/end, a conductive element/(23a..23e) electrically connecting the at least one battery cell (16a & 16b) to at least one of the controller and the terminal (para. [0069], [0188]-[0189]). Kano fails to teach providing a protective film applied to at least a portion of the conductive element/busbar and positioned between the water-resistant ring and the outer housing. Klammler teaches providing a protective film/hydrophobic coating/(water-repellent layer) applied to at least a portion of the conductive element/busbar, and further teaches applying the protective film to the entire battery module including at least the battery cells, metal parts that are frequently exposed to temperature fluctuations, such as housings/frames, brackets or the like (page 4, lines 3-11), in order to extend the life of batteries and battery modules (page 3, lines 9-12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to provide the battery module of Kano with a protective film applied to at least a portion of the conductive element/(23a..23e), and to the housings, as taught by Klammler, in order to extend the life of batteries and battery modules. Therefore, applying the protective film to the frames/housings (i.e. module housing and outer housing) in Kano in view of Klammler would provide that the protective film would be positioned between the water-resistant ring (21a) and the outer housing. With respect to claim 5 , Kano teaches wherein the water-resistant ring (21a) seals an interface between the at least one battery cell (16a & 16b) and the conductive element (23e & 23d) (as illustrated). With respect to claim 6 , Kano teaches wherein the water-resistant ring (21a) includes an annular rib protruding away from the at least one battery cell (16a & 16b) (as illustrated in Figure 11) (para. [0058]). With respect to claim 7 , Kano teaches wherein the annular rib is a first annular rib (outer rim), and wherein the water-resistant ring (21a) further includes a second annular rib (inner rim) protruding away from the at least one battery cell (16a & 16b) and located radially inward from the first annular rib (outer rim) (as illustrated). With respect to claim 8 , Kano teaches wherein each of the first annular rib (outer rim) and the second annular rib (inner rim) is circular (as illustrated) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano (US 2015/0222131 A1) in view of AT 512000 B1 (to Klammler et al.) , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakakibarak (US 20070178372 A1) . With respect to claim 3 , modified Kano discloses all claim limitations as set forth above but fails to teach an insulating sheet provided between the conductive element and the outer housing. Sakakibarak teaches a battery module (Figure 1, 99) comprising an insulating sheet (74) provided between a conductive element (73) and an outer housing (80) in order to electrically insulate the outer housing from the battery cell (72) (para. [0077]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to provide an insulating sheet between the conductive element and the outer housing in modified Kano, as taught by Sakakibarak, in order to electrically insulate the outer housing from the battery cell . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano (US 2015/0222131 A1) in view of AT 512000 B1 (to Klammler et al.) , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 104466045 A (Seidl et al.) – translation attached and relied upon below . With respect to claim 4 , modified Kano discloses all claim limitations as set forth above including wherein the battery cell module includes a plurality of battery cells (16a & 16b) (Figure 11), the plurality of battery cells (16a & 16b) including the at least one battery cell (as illustrated), but fails to teach wherein the plurality of battery cells (16a & 16b) have an energy of at least 60 Watt-hours. Seidl teaches a battery module (Figure 4) comprising a plurality of battery cells (54a) (para. [0026]), and wherein the plurality of battery cells (54a) have an energy capacity greater than 100 watts (para. [0003]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed energy range of at least 60 Watt-hours, in order to provide the necessary energy for operating the desired electric devices. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to provide a plurality of battery cells that have an energy of at least 60 Watt-hours in the battery pack of modified Kano, as taught by Seidl, in order to provide the necessary energy for operating the desired electric devices. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITY V CHANDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached on 571-272-1453. 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. /KAITY V CHANDLER/ 5/26/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 Application/Control Number: 19/029,644 Page 2 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 19/029,644 Page 3 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 19/029,644 Page 4 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 19/029,644 Page 5 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 19/029,644 Page 6 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 19/029,644 Page 7 Art Unit: 1725
Prosecution Insights