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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed February 3, 2026, The following rejection is reapplied in light of current amendments:
Claim(s) 1, 14-17 & 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen CN 218512589U.
Claim(s) 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen CN 218512589U in view of Wu CN 109030908A.
Claim(s) 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen CN 218512589U in view of Yao et al. CN 203950624U.
Claim 20 is allowed. Claims 2-11 are objected. Claims 1 & 12-19 are newly rejected as necessitated by amendment:
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed. Claims 2-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2 & 20 would be allowable over the prior art of record, because the prior art is silent to the conductive member comprises a first component disposed on the base and a second component configured to abut against the test terminal of the unit under test, the second component being connected to an end of the first component, and a gap that allows relative elastic deformation of the second component and the first component being formed therebetween.
The prior art, such as Chen CN 218512589U, teaches a test mechanism (utility model claims a short circuit testing lithium of battery; See the Abstract), comprising: a base; Fig. 1 below); a limiting member (limiting member; Fig. 1 below); and a conductive member disposed on the base and spaced apart from the limiting member (short circuit test component 3; comprises a short circuit tester 31, the upper conductive sheet 32 and the lower conductive sheet 33; Fig. 1 below; Specific implementation examples paragraph 5) , wherein a space between the conductive member and the limiting member is used for placing a unit under test (batteries sire placed between short circuit test component 3 and limiting member; Fig. 1 below); the limiting member is configured to abut against the unit under test (limiting member contacts batteries; Fig. 1 below) , and the conductive member is configured to elastically abut against a test terminal of the unit under test (short circuit test component 3; comprises a short circuit tester 31, the upper conductive sheet 32 and the lower conductive sheet 33; Fig. 1 below; Specific implementation examples paragraph 5; sheets engage to connect). However, the reference does not teach or suggest the conductive member comprising a first component disposed on the base and a second component configured to abut against the test terminal of the unit under test, the second component being connected to an end of the first component, and a gap that allows relative elastic deformation of the second component and the first component being formed therebetween. Therefore, the instant claim is patentably distinct from the prior art of record.
Claims 3-11 would be allowable based on dependency to claim 2.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 14-17 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen CN 218512589U.
With respect to claim 1, Chen teaches a test mechanism (utility model claims a short circuit testing lithium of battery; See the Abstract), comprising: a base; Fig. 1 below); a limiting member (limiting member; Fig. 1 below); and a conductive member disposed on the base and spaced apart from the limiting member (short circuit test component 3; comprises a short circuit tester 31, the upper conductive sheet 32 and the lower conductive sheet 33; Fig. 1 below; Specific implementation examples paragraph 5) , wherein a space between the conductive member and the limiting member is used for placing a unit under test (batteries sire placed between short circuit test component 3 and limiting member; Fig. 1 below); the unit under test is placed above the base along a first direction (x direction; Fig. 1 below); the limiting member is configured to abut against the unit under test (limiting member contacts batteries; Fig. 1 below), along a second direction (smaller arrow on far right is y direction. larger arrow on far right is z direction; Fig. 1 below), and the conductive member is configured to elastically abut against a test terminal of the unit under test (short circuit test component 3; comprises a short circuit tester 31, the upper conductive sheet 32 and the lower conductive sheet 33; Fig. 1 below; Specific implementation examples paragraph 5; sheets engage to connect) along the second direction, the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction (x direction is perpendicular to y and z second direction; Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
489
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 14, wherein at least one end of the base in a preset direction is provided with a guiding member (guiding member; Fig. 1 above) , the guiding member being configured to guide the unit under test onto the base, wherein a spacing direction between the conductive member and the limiting member intersects with the preset direction (guiding member; Fig. 1 above runs perpendicular to the spacing direction; Fig. 1 above). With respect to claim 15, an end of the guiding member distal to the base is provided with a guiding surface (guiding member; Fig. 1 above). With respect to claim 16, an acquisition module electrically connected to the conductive member to obtain an operating parameter of the unit under test (short circuit tester 31 electrically connected to the conductive member 33; Fig. 1 above; Specific implementation examples paragraph 5; sheets engage to connect). With respect to claim 17, a frame (12; Fig. 1 above) , the test mechanism and the acquisition module both being disposed in the frame (short circuit test component 3; includes short circuit tester 31 in frame 1). With respect to claim 19,a battery production system (lithium the production process; Background), comprising the battery test system (Fig. 1 above).
Although Chen teaches a limiting member, the reference does not teach or suggest that the limiting member is disposed on the base (claim 1); the guiding surface being inclined in the preset direction and toward a side outside the base (claim 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the limiting member being disposed on the base of the test mechanism of Chen, as making essential working parts of a device separable is prima facie obvious. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
With respect to the guiding surface being inclined in the preset direction and toward a side outside the base (claim 15); it would have been obvious as changes in shape essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen CN 218512589U in view of Wu CN 109030908A.
Chen teaches a test mechanism as described in the rejection recited herein above.
Chen does not teach or suggest: a mounting base disposed on the base, the conductive member being disposed on a side surface of the mounting base facing the limiting member (claim 12); at least one of a position of the conductive member on the mounting base and a position of the mounting base on the base is adjustable (claim 13).
Wu teaches that it is well known in the art to employ a mounting base in test mechanisms. See Fig. 7 & the Abstract.
PNG
media_image2.png
134
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chen and Wu are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating testing mechanisms.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the mounting base of Wu, on the base of the test mechanism of Chen, in order to improve support of the test mechanism during battery processing. The skilled artisan recognizes that testing equipment should be secured.
With respect to the conductive member being disposed on a side surface of the mounting base facing the limiting member (claim 12); it would have been obvious in the test mechanism of Chen in view of Wu, as rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to at least one of a position of the conductive member on the mounting base and a position of the mounting base on the base is adjustable (claim 13); it would have been obvious in the test mechanism of Chen in view of Wu, as making separable essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Also, rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen CN 218512589U in view of Yao et al. CN 203950624U.
Chen teaches a test mechanism as described in the rejection recited herein above.
Chen does not teach or suggest: a separator, the separator being disposed in the frame and separating the frame into at least two chambers, and at least one test mechanism being disposed in each of the chambers (claim 18).
Yao teaches that it is well known in the art to employ a separator (Fig. 1, below), the separator being disposed in the frame and separating the frame into at least two chambers, (separator is disposed in the frame 1, and separating the frame into at least two chambers at 5 & 6; Fig. 1, below and at least one test mechanism being disposed in each of the chambers (same devices in both chambers; claim 18).
PNG
media_image3.png
540
499
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Chen and Yao are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating testing mechanisms. See Yao where the utility model claims a new type multi-way adjustable resistor load box, belonging to the technical field of battery test.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the separator being disposed in the frame and separating the frame into at least two chambers as taught by Yao, in the battery testing mechanism of Chen, in order to improve support of the test mechanism during battery processing. The skilled artisan recognizes that testing equipment should be secured.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts that the instant claims are not obvious over
Chen CN 218512589U does not disclose or suggest that "the unit under test is placed above the base along a first direction, the limiting member is configured to abut against the unit under test along a second direction, and the conductive member is configured to elastically abut against a test terminal of the unit under test along the second direction, the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction," as recited in amended claim 1. This is not persuasive as Chen teaching the limiting member is configured to abut against the unit under test (limiting member contacts batteries; Fig. 1 below), along a second direction (smaller arrow on far right is y direction. larger arrow on far right is z direction; Fig. 1 below), and the conductive member is configured to elastically abut against a test terminal of the unit under test (short circuit test component 3; comprises a short circuit tester 31, the upper conductive sheet 32 and the lower conductive sheet 33; Fig. 1 below; Specific implementation examples paragraph 5; sheets engage to connect) along the second direction, the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction (x direction is perpendicular to y and z second direction; Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
489
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the instant clams are rejected on new ground necessitated by amendment.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. 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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723