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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 19, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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 t0he 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.
Claims 1-5, 10, 12, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US PGPub 2018/0076493 A1, cited on the IDS dated May 17, 2023), and further in view of Tucker et al. (US PGPub 2008/0268323 A1), Sawada (US PGPub 2020/0078765 A1), and Heller, Jr. et al. (US Patent No. 6,010,803).
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses in Figs. 1 and 6-7 a battery for a vehicle ([0007]-[0009], [0089]), comprising:
a battery housing (10) ([0009]); and
a multiplicity of electrochemical cells (20) ([0009]-[0010]),
wherein the battery housing (10) comprises the following:
a lower housing part (10a, 10b) for receiving the multiplicity of electrochemical cells (20) ([0009]-[0010]), the lower housing part (10a, 10b) enclosing an interior space (Fig. 1); and
a housing cover (10c), which is connected to the lower housing part (10a, 10b) in such a way that the interior space is sealed off and closed off from an external environment ([0008]-[0009]),
wherein the lower housing part (10a, 10b) has a base element (10a), and an adhesive layer (30) dispersed on and adhered to the base element (10a) for connecting the multiplicity of electrochemical cells (20) to the base element (10a) of the battery housing (10) in a material-bonding manner ([0027], [0033]).
The Examiner notes that Park discloses wherein a multiplicity of projections (10d) are arranged on at least one area of the base element (10a) (Figs. 6-7, [0033]) and therefore Park discloses wherein a surface of the base element (10a) is increased by a means for roughening the base element (10a) to increase a better adhesive effect, the means for roughening includes a multiplicity of projections (10d).
Park further discloses in Figs. 1 and 6-7 wherein the battery housing (10) comprising the base element (10a) comprising the multiplicity of projections (10d) is made of a thermally conductive material, such as aluminum ([0015]), and wherein the adhesive layer (30) is in contact with the base element (10a) ([0026]-[0027]).
However, Park does not disclose wherein at least one projection of the multiplicity of projections has a multiplicity of notches along a direction of extent of the projections such that the projection has a peak/valley profile along its direction of extent.
Tucker teaches wherein a surface of a metal housing is increased by a means for roughening the metal housing in order to increase a better adhesive effect with an adhesive member (Fig. 1, [0039]-[0040]).
Specifically, Tucker teaches wherein the means for roughening is not particularly limited and may be accomplished by various methods, including chemical etching ([0039]-[0040]).
Furthermore, Sawada teaches in Fig. 1 wherein a metal material (1, aluminum) has a roughened surface that may be formed by chemical etching ([0008], [0063]-[0064], [0116]).
Specifically, Sawada teaches in Fig. 1 wherein the roughened surface comprises a multiplicity of notches along a direction of extent, such that it has a peak/valley profile ([0008], [0063]-[0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to roughen the surface of the base element of Park comprising the multiplicity of projections, as taught by Tucker, such that the multiplicity of projections of Park have a multiplicity of notches along a direction of extent of the projections and the projections have a peak/valley profile along the direction of extent, as taught by Sawada, in order to increase a better adhesive effect with the adhesive layer of Park, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would achieve good contact between the base element and the adhesive layer, as desired by Park.
Modified Park further discloses wherein the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) providing mechanical surface roughening are formed of a thermally conductive material, such as aluminum (e.g. metal) ([0033] of Park).
However, modified Park remains silent regarding the method of forming the multiplicity of projections providing mechanical surface roughening and consequently does not disclose wherein such comprise injection-molded projections, hot-embossed projections, or hot-stamped projections.
Heller, Jr. teaches wherein injection-molding is used as a method for forming a battery housing made of metal that makes it easy to include of a number of design features, such as projections (C9, L35-38, and C5, L12-18, 33-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the multiplicity of projections of modified Park by injection-molding, as taught by Heller, Jr., as such is a known method in the art for forming a battery housing made of metal that makes it easy to include projections and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully form the battery housing of modified Park.
Thus, modified Park discloses wherein the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) providing mechanical surface roughening comprise injection-molded projections (C9, L35-38 of Heller. Jr).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) guides the accommodation of the multiplicity of electrochemical cells (20 of Park) ([0033] of Park) and further discloses wherein the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) fill the battery housing (10 of Park) (Figs. 1 and 7 of Park) and therefore modified Park suggests wherein the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) increases a surface area of at least one area of the base element (10c of Park) by at least 20%.
Assuming for the sake of argument that modified Park does not suggest wherein the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) increases a surface area of at least one area of the base element (10c of Park) by at least 20%, the following is relied upon.
Modified Park discloses wherein the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) increases a surface area of at least one area of the base element (10c of Park) (Fig. 7 of Park).
Specifically, modified Park discloses wherein the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) guides the accommodation of the multiplicity of electrochemical cells (20 of Park) and further discloses wherein the shape of the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) is not particularly limited ([0033] of Park).
The Examiner notes that the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) each must have a minimum height in order to successfully guide the accommodation of the multiplicity of electrochemical cells (20 of Park) (Fig. 7, [0033] of Park).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the height of the multiplicity of projections of modified Park, such that the multiplicity of projections increase a surface area of at least one area of the base element by at least 20%, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully guide the accommodation of the multiplicity of electrochemical cells of modified Park, as desired by modified Park.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) extends perpendicularly from the base element (10a of Park) in a direction of the interior space (Figs. 6-7, [0033] of Park).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) is arranged in a strip pattern (Figs. 6-7, [0033] of Park).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein at least some of the strips extend along a longitudinal direction (L) of the battery housing (10 of Park) (Figs. 6-7, [0033] of Park).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the lower housing part (10a, 10b of Park) has a multiplicity of side walls (10b of Park), which delimit the interior space and which are connected to the base element (10a of Park) and extend perpendicularly from the base element (10a of Park) (Fig. 1, [0008]-[0009], see four side walls of Park).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) is arranged in a pattern on at least one area of the base element (10a of Park) (Figs. 6-7, [0033] of Park), the at least one area being arranged at a distance from the side walls (10b of Park), so that a gap is arranged between the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) and the side walls (10b of Park) (Figs. 6-7 of Park).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein a cross section of the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) is triangular.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein a surface of the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) is roughened ([0039] of Tucker).
Regarding Claim 16, Park discloses in Figs. 1 and 6-7 a battery for a vehicle ([0007]- [0009], [0089]) comprising:
a battery housing (10) ([0009]) including:
a first side wall, a second side wall, a third side wall, and a fourth side wall opposing the third side wall ([0009], see four side walls 10b);
a base element (10a) coupled to the first, second, third, and fourth respective side walls (10b) ([0009]); and
a cover (10c) ([0009]); and
a multiplicity of electrochemical cells (20) ([0009]-[0010]) provided in the housing (10) and connected to the base element (10a) in a material-bonding manner by means of an adhesive layer (30) which is dispersed on and adhered to the base element (10a) of the lower housing part (10a, 10b) ([0027], [0033]).
The Examiner notes that Park discloses wherein a multiplicity of projections (10d) are arranged on at least one surface area of the base element (10a) (Figs. 6-7, [0033]) and therefore Park discloses wherein a surface area of the base element (10a) is increased by a means for roughening, the means for roughening includes a multiplicity of projections (10d).
Park further discloses in Figs. 1 and 6-7 wherein the battery housing (10) comprising the base element (10a) comprising the multiplicity of projections (10d) is made of a thermally conductive material, such as aluminum ([0015]), and wherein the adhesive layer (30) is in contact with the base element (10a) ([0026]-[0027]).
However, Park does not disclose wherein at least one projection of the multiplicity of projections has a multiplicity of notches along a direction of extent of the projections such that the projection has a peak/valley profile along its direction of extent.
Tucker teaches wherein a surface of a metal housing is increased by a means for roughening the metal housing in order to increase a better adhesive effect with an adhesive member (Fig. 1, [0030]).
Specifically, Tucker teaches wherein the means for roughening is not particularly limited and may be accomplished by various methods, including chemical etching ([0040]).
Furthermore, Sawada teaches in Fig. 1 wherein a metal material (1, aluminum) has a roughened surface that may be formed by chemical etching ([0008], ([0008], [0063]-[0064], [0116]).
Specifically, Sawada teaches in Fig. 1 wherein the roughened surface comprises a multiplicity of notches along a direction of extent, such that it has a peak/valley profile ([0008], [0063]-[0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to roughen the surface of the base element of Park comprising the multiplicity of projections, as taught by Tucker, such that the multiplicity of projections of Park have a multiplicity of notches along a direction of extent of the projections and the projections have a peak/valley profile along the direction of extent, as taught by Sawada, in order to increase a better adhesive effect with the adhesive layer of Park, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would achieve good contact between the base element and the adhesive layer, as desired by Park.
Modified Park further discloses wherein the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) providing mechanical surface roughening are formed of a thermally conductive material, such as aluminum (e.g. metal) ([0033] of Park).
However, modified Park remains silent regarding the method of forming the multiplicity of projections providing mechanical surface roughening and consequently does not disclose wherein such comprise injection-molded projections, hot-embossed projections, or hot-stamped projections.
Heller, Jr. teaches wherein injection-molding is used as a method for forming a battery housing made of metal that makes it easy to include of a number of design features, such as projections (C9, L35-38, and C5, L12-18, 33-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the multiplicity of projections of modified Park by injection-molding, as taught by Heller, Jr., as such is a known method in the art for forming a battery housing made of metal that makes it easy to include projections and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully form the battery housing of modified Park.
Thus, modified Park discloses wherein the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) providing mechanical surface roughening comprise injection-molded projections (C9, L35-38 of Heller. Jr).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein an adhesive of the adhesive layer (30 of Park) is not particularly limited and wherein any known curable resin materials may be used as long as the multiplicity of electrochemical cells are effectively immobilized, such as epoxy-resin adhesive ([0081]-[0082] of Park).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize epoxy-resin adhesive as the adhesive of the adhesive layer, as disclosed by modified Park, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully effectively immobilize the multiplicity of the electrochemical cells, as desired by modified Park.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) guides the accommodation of the multiplicity of electrochemical cells (20 of Park) ([0033] of Park) and further discloses wherein the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) fill the battery housing (10 of Park) (Figs. 1 and 7 of Park) and therefore modified Park suggests wherein the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) increase the surface are of at least one area of the base element (10a of Park) by at least 20%.
Assuming for the sake of argument that modified Park does not suggest wherein the multiplicity of projections increase the surface are of at least one area of the base element by at least 20% is relied upon.
Modified Park discloses wherein the multiplicity of projections (10d) increase the surface area of at least one area of the base element (10c) (Fig. 7).
Specifically, modified Park discloses wherein the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) guides the accommodation of the multiplicity of electrochemical cells (20 of Park) and further discloses wherein the shape of the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) is not particularly limited ([0033] of Park).
The Examiner notes that the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) each must have a minimum height in order to successfully guide the accommodation of the multiplicity of electrochemical cells (20 of Park) (Fig. 7, [0033] of Park).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the height of the multiplicity of projections, such that the multiplicity of projections increase the surface area of at least one area of the base element by at least 20%, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully guide the accommodation of the multiplicity of electrochemical cells, as desired by modified Park.
Modified Park further discloses wherein the adhesive layer (30 of Park) is formed on the entirety of the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) (Fig. 8 of Park) and therefore modified Park discloses wherein an adhesive surface area increases by at least 20%.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein an adhesive of the adhesive layer (30 of Park) is not particularly limited and wherein any curable resin materials may be used as long as the multiplicity of electrochemical cells are effectively immobilized, such as epoxy-resin adhesive ([0081]-[0082] of Park).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize epoxy-resin adhesive as the adhesive of the adhesive layer, as disclosed by modified Park, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully effectively immobilize the multiplicity of the electrochemical cells, as desired by modified Park.
Claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US PGPub 2018/0076493 A1, cited on the IDS dated May 17, 2023) in view of Tucker et al. (US PGPub 2008/0268323 A1), Sawada (US PGPub 2020/0078765 A1) and Heller, Jr. et al. (US Patent No. 6,010,803), as applied to Claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of An et al. (US PGPub 2011/0135993 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Park does not disclose wherein at least some of the strips extend along a width direction (B) of the battery housing.
However, modified Park discloses wherein a shape of the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) is not particularly limited and may be suitable adopted in consideration of the multiplicity of electrochemical cells (20 of Park) ([0033] of Park).
Furthermore, modified Park discloses wherein the shape and size of the battery housing (10 of Park) is not particularly limited and wherein the shape and number of electrochemical cells (20 of Park) is not particularly limited so long as they are accommodated in the battery housing (10 of Park) ([0008] of Park).
Thus, modified Park discloses wherein the configuration of the multiplicity of electrochemical cells (20 of Park) in the battery housing (10 of Park) is a design choice.
An teaches in Fig. 5 a battery housing comprising a multiplicity of electrochemical cells (200), wherein the multiplicity of electrochemical cells (200) are cylindrical cells that extend along a width direction (B) of the battery housing ([0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the multiplicity of electrochemical cells of modified Park to be cylindrical cells that extend along a width direction (B) of the battery housing of modified Park, as taught by An, such that the strips of modified Park corresponding to the multiplicity of electrochemical cells extend along a width direction (B) of the battery housing, as the configuration of the multiplicity of the electrochemical cells in the battery housing is a design choice and such is a known configuration in the art and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would form a battery housing that successfully accommodates the multiplicity of electrochemical cells, as desired by modified Park.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Park does not disclose wherein the strips extend diagonally to a longitudinal direction (L) of the battery housing.
However, modified Park discloses wherein a shape of the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) is not particularly limited and may be suitable adopted in consideration of the multiplicity of electrochemical cells (20 of Park) ([0033] of Park).
Furthermore, Park discloses wherein the shape and size of the battery housing (10 of Park) is not particularly limited and wherein the shape and number of electrochemical cells (20 of Park) is not particularly limited so long as they are accommodated in the battery housing (10 of Park) ([0008] of Park).
Thus, modified Park discloses wherein the configuration of the multiplicity of electrochemical cells (20 of Park) in the battery housing (10 of Park) is a design choice.
An teaches in Fig. 5 a battery housing comprising a multiplicity of electrochemical cells (200), wherein the multiplicity of electrochemical cells (200) are cylindrical cells that extend diagonally to a longitudinal direction (L) of the battery housing ([0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the multiplicity of electrochemical cells of modified Park to be cylindrical cells that extend diagonally to a longitudinal direction (L) of the battery housing of modified Park, as taught by An, such that the strips of Park corresponding to the multiplicity of electrochemical cells extend diagonally to a longitudinal direction (L) of the battery housing, as the configuration of the multiplicity of the electrochemical cells in the battery housing is a design choice and such is a known configuration in the art and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would form a battery housing that successfully accommodates the multiplicity of electrochemical cells, as desired by modified Park.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) is arranged in a pattern on at least one area of the base element (10a of Park) (Figs. 6-7, [0033] of Park).
However, modified Park does not disclose wherein the multiplicity of projections is arranged in a pattern on at least one area of the base element, the pattern having concentric circles or concentric partial circles.
Though, modified Park discloses wherein a shape of the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) is not particularly limited and may be suitable adopted in consideration of the multiplicity of electrochemical cells (20 of Park) ([0033] of Park).
Furthermore, modified Park discloses wherein the shape and size of the battery housing (10 of Park) is not particularly limited and wherein the shape and number of electrochemical cells (20 of Park) is not particularly limited so long as they are accommodated in the battery housing (10 of Park) ([0008] of Park).
Thus, modified Park discloses wherein the configuration of the multiplicity of electrochemical cells (20 of Park) in the battery housing (10 of Park) is a design choice.
An teaches in Fig. 5 a battery housing comprising a multiplicity of electrochemical cells (200), wherein the multiplicity of electrochemical cells (200) are cylindrical cells ([0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the multiplicity of electrochemical cells of modified Park to be cylindrical cells, as taught by An, such that the multiplicity of projections is arranged in a pattern on at least one area of the base element, the pattern having concentric circles, as the configuration of the multiplicity of the electrochemical cells in the battery housing is a design choice and such is a known configuration in the art and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would form a battery housing that successfully accommodates the multiplicity of electrochemical cells, as desired by Park.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US PGPub 2018/0076493 A1, cited on the IDS dated May 17, 2023) in view of Tucker et al. (US PGPub 2008/0268323 A1), Sawada (US PGPub 2020/0078765 A1), and Heller, Jr. et al. (US Patent No. 6,010,803), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Katsumoto et al. (US PGPub 2003/0182792 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) is arranged in a pattern on at least one area of the base element (10a of Park) (Figs. 6-7, [0033] of Park).
However, modified Park does not disclose wherein the multiplicity of projections is arranged in a pattern on at least one area of the base element, the pattern corresponding to a waffle pattern.
The Examiner notes that the instant specification discloses wherein a waffle pattern corresponds to at least approximately diamond-shaped recesses when the multiplicity of electrochemical cells each have a square shape (Fig. 6 and P3, L22-26).
Though, modified Park discloses wherein a shape of the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) is not particularly limited and may be suitable adopted in consideration of the multiplicity of electrochemical cells (20 of Park) ([0033] of Park).
Furthermore, modified Park discloses wherein the shape and size of the battery housing (10 of Park) is not particularly limited and wherein the shape and number of electrochemical cells (20 of Park) is not particularly limited so long as they are accommodated in the battery housing (10 of Park) ([0008] of Park).
Thus, modified Park discloses wherein the configuration of the multiplicity of electrochemical cells (20 of Park) in the battery housing (10 of Park) is a design choice.
Katsumoto teaches in Fig. 1 an electrochemical cell (200) having a square shape ([0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the multiplicity of electrochemical cells of modified Park to be electrochemical cells having a square shape, as taught by Katsumoto, such that the multiplicity of projections is arranged in a pattern on at least one area of the base element, wherein the pattern corresponds to a waffle pattern, as the configuration of the multiplicity of the electrochemical cells in the battery housing is a design choice and such is a known configuration in the art and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would form a battery housing that successfully accommodates the multiplicity of electrochemical cells, as desired by Park.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US PGPub 2018/0076493 A1, cited on the IDS dated May 17, 2023) in view of Tucker et al. (US PGPub 2008/0268323 A1), Sawada (US PGPub 2020/0078765 A1), and Heller, Jr. et al. (US Patent No. 6,010,803), as applied to Claim 10, and further in view of Faust et al. (US Patent No. 6,376,126 B1).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Park discloses all of the limitations a set forth above. However, modified Park does not disclose wherein the lower housing part has a multiplicity of partition walls, which divide the interior space into a multiplicity of cell chambers.
Faust teaches wherein a battery housing comprising an interior space for receiving a multiplicity of electrochemical cells comprises a multiplicity of partition walls, which divide the interior space into a multiplicity of cell chambers, in order to secure the multiplicity of electrochemical cells in the battery housing (C1, L31-46).
Specifically, Faust teaches in Fig. 1 a battery housing (10) comprising a lower housing part (24), wherein the lower housing part (24) has a multiplicity of partition walls (26), which divide the interior space into a multiplicity of cell chambers (28) (C5, L8-12, 36-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a multiplicity of partition walls in the battery housing of modified Park, such that the lower housing part of modified Park has a multiplicity of partition walls, which divide the interior space of modified Park into a multiplicity of cell chambers, as taught by Faust, in order to secure the multiplicity of electrochemical cells of modified Park in the battery housing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the new limitation of amended Claims 1 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed September 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended Claims 1 and 16, the Applicant argues that Park fails to disclose any battery housing having a base element with an increased surface roughness. More specifically, the protrusions of Park serve to guide the battery cells during the insertion into the battery housing and do not address the problem of increasing surface roughness (to increase vibration resistance).
The Examiner notes that the prior art does not need to recognize the same technical effect or solve the same problem as that of the claimed invention. So long as the structure of the battery, specifically the multiplicity of projections, is the same as that of the claimed invention, the prior art will read on the claimed invention no matter the motivation for arriving at said structure or the recognized technical effects of said structure.
Next, the Applicant argues that the Office’s combination of modifying Park’s projections using Sawada’s chemical etching techniques and then justification of the use of chemical etching via Tucker is not justified. The Office makes this assertion without offering any technical reasoning as to why someone of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to create this particular three-way combination. Further, the Office fails to explain how the specific structural combination would yield predictable results.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the technical reasoning for making the three-way combination has been set forth in the rejection of record.
For example, Park discloses wherein the base element (10a) comprising the multiplicity of projections (10d) is made of a thermally conductive material, such as aluminum ([0015]) and further discloses wherein the adhesive layer (30) is in contact with the base element (10a) ([0026]-[0027]).
Tucker teaches wherein a surface of a metal housing is increased by a means for roughening the metal housing in order to increase a better adhesive effect with an adhesive member, wherein the means for roughening is not particularly limited and may be accomplished by various methods including chemical etching (Fig. 1, [0039]-[0040]).
Therefore, the teaching of Tucker is applied to Park in order to increase a better adhesive effect with the base element of Park and the adhesive member of Park.
Sawada further teaches wherein a metal material (1, aluminum) has a roughened surface that may be formed by chemical etching, wherein the roughened surface comprises a multiplicity of notches along a direction of extent, such that it has a peak/valley profile ([0008], [0063]-[0064], [0116]).
Therefore, Sawada teaches the structure of the roughened surface of modified Park that is formed by the chemical etching.
The Examiner notes that the Applicant has not provided any evidence or reasoning why one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make the combination of Park with Tucker and Sawada in order to achieve a batter adhesive effect with an adhesive member.
The Applicant further argues that Sawada does not teach, disclose, or imply “wherein a metal material (1) has a roughened surface that may be formed by chemical etching”. In comparison to Sawada, the adhesion between the adhesive and the base element would be equivalent to a good adhesion between the aluminum base material (1) and the oxide film (2). Finally, Sawada discloses a wave like surface (Fig. 1) but does not disclose a multiplicity of notches along the direction of extent of one projection.
The Examiner notes that Sawada has not been relied on to teach improved adhesion between a metal base element and an adhesive film. Instead, Sawada has been relied on to teach the structure of a metal base material with its surface roughened by chemical etching (Fig. 1, [0008], [0063]-[0064], [0116]).
In other words, Tucker has been relied on to teach roughening the surface of a metal base element in order to increase a better adhesive effect with an adhesive member while Sawada has been relied on to teach what the roughened surfaced of that metal base element would structurally look like (e.g. a multiplicity of notches long a direction of extent, such that it has a peak/valley profile).
Furthermore, the Applicant has not provided any reasoning or evidence as to why the combination of Park with Tucker and Sawada would not disclose a multiplicity of notches along the direction of extent of one projection.
The Examiner notes one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Thus, the arguments are not found to be persuasive.
The Examiner suggests that the Applicant amend Claims 1 and Claim 16 to include structural elements that would differentiate the claimed invention from the cited prior art.
For example, the Examiner notes that modified Park discloses wherein the multiplicity of projections (10d) are formed of a thermally conductive material (e.g. metal) ([0015], [0033] of Park). In contrast, the instant specification discloses wherein the multiplicity of projections may be formed of an open-pored foam so that the adhesive can flow into the open pores in order to introduce elasticity and damping capacity into the base element of the battery housing (P15).
Similarly, the Examiner acknowledges the differences between the recognized technical effects of Park and the claimed invention and therefore suggests that the Applicant amend Claim 1 and 16 to include structural limitations directs towards these differences.
For example, the Examiner notes that the multiplicity of projections (10d of Park) serve to guide the battery cells during insertion into the battery housing ([0033] of Park). In contrast, the multiplicity of projections of the present invention serve to increase surface roughness to increase vibration resistance (P2 of the instant specification). Therefore, the multiplicity of projections of modified Park may have a different size or shape than the multiplicity of projections of the present invention in order to successfully accommodate the battery cells.
For example, the Examiner suggests that the Applicant could amend the claims to recite dimensions of the multiplicity of projections (e.g. P14 of the instant specification, wherein a height of the multiplicity of projections is preferably less than a maximum of 2 mm in order not to unnecessarily restrict or reduce the available interior space) or a shape of the multiplicity of projections (e.g. see Claim 14 and Figures 10a-b, where the species directed to the semicircular shape has not been rejected and does not appear to create a guiding portion that corresponds to a shape of a battery cell).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al. (US PGPub 2022/0216572 A1, which has a foreign priority date of March 20, 2019) discloses an in Figs. 2-8 an insulating plate (600) for an electrochemical cell (10) comprising a multiplicity of projections (604) in order to improve durability of the electrochemical cell by minimizing an impact due to an external impact or vibration ([0006], [0035]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY WYLUDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 AM - 3 PM EST.
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.
/KIMBERLY WYLUDA/Examiner, Art Unit 1725