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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/25/2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claim 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, et. al. (US2014106211A1) in view of Wu, et. al. (CN 109103379 A; see EPO Machine translation attached with previous action for citation), Marukawa, et. al. (US 20090053588 A1), Salinas, et. al. (US2018175469A1), and Jung, et. al. (KR20200075788A; see EPO Machine translation attached with this action for citation).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches a battery watertightness structure comprising: a first member (main body 110); a second member (cover 120) that covers the first member; a gasket (sealing portion 150; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a gasket includes a shaped piece or ring sealing the junction or connection point between two surfaces, and here, the sealing portion 150 is depicted as a rectangular shaped piece in Fig. 1-2) located between the first member and the second member; assembly hardware (fastening member 20 may include a bolt, a stud, etc.) fixed to a hole (first fastening portion 112) in the first member. Lee at [0039 – 50], Fig. 1-2.
Regarding the claim limitation, “and fastens the first member and the second member and the gasket therebetween,” the Office notes that this under the broadest reasonable interpretation does not necessarily mean the assembly hardware or counterpart assembly hardware penetrates a hole within the gasket, given that holes as claimed are within the first and second members but not the gasket specifically. As such, Lee does read upon “fastens” in this case, as the bolt of the fastening member 20 connects the first and second coupling portions of the first and second member, fastening the first and second member to the gasket using this adjacent connection. Lee at [0050]( “For example, the fastening member 20 may include a bolt, a stud, etc. That is, the first and second fastening portions 112 , 122 and 124 are primarily coupled through forcible insertion by interposing the sealing member 150 therebetween, and may be further secondarily coupled by the first and second coupling portions 113 and 123 provided in a direction vertical to the first and second fastening portions 112 , 122 and 124 at the outside of the first and second fastening portions 112 , 122 and 124.”)
Regarding the claim limitation, “wherein a height of a portion of the assembly hardware, which is located between the first member and the second member, is configured to support a compression limit of the gasket,” it is the Office’s position that the “height” of assembly hardware corresponds to the extent of fastening or “height” of a bolt, screw, or other similar insert. This because a claim term is functional when it recites a feature “by what it does rather than by what it is” (e.g., as evidenced by its specific structure or specific ingredients). MPEP 2173.05 (g). Here, the “height” is describing a function of the assembly hardware, which itself is defined insofar as it is a) fixed to a hole in the first member, b) assembled with the counterpart assembly hardware, and c) has a “height” configured to support a compression limit as described in the final clause of Claim 1. Thus we can interpret this “height” limitation as further describing the assembly hardware rather than as a discrete component. With this in mind, “height” is necessarily configured to support a compression limit because the physical characteristics of the gasket contribute to the extent to which, for example, a bolt may be screwed into the fastening portions. Lee at [0039 – 50].
Lee is silent as to a counterpart assembly hardware that is assembled with the assembly hardware through a hole in the second member (first coupling portion 113, second coupling portion 123, or first and second through holes 113a or 123a). Lee does not explicitly teach the gasket is in contact with the first and second member. Lee does not teach a portion of the assembly hardware, which is located between the first member and the second member and inside a through-hole of the gasket, is in contact with the first member and the second member. This is because Lee’s depiction and description of Fig. 2 does not directly depict the fastening members 20 penetrating the gasket via a through-hole. Lee does not teach “the hole in the first member and the through-hole of the gasket are aligned with each other such that the assembly hardware extends through the through-hole of the gasket into the hole in the first member.”
PNG
media_image1.png
3300
2560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The gasket (sealing portion 150) of Lee, connecting the first member 110 and the second member 120 via the assembly hardware 20 and a hole 123a or 113.
Wu teaches a battery pack, wherein the pack comprises a case 110, cover 111, and a sealing gasket 112 between these two members, wherein the cover comprises a rectangular frame 111a on the edge of the cover plate 111, wherein this frame comprises a connection hole 111b, which is connected to a mounting hole 111b; because 111b refers to multiple elements, this is taken to mean the holes 111b correspond to the holes 11b in the cover, gasket, and case. Wu at p.5, Fig.3-4. Further, as seen in Figure 4 below, a plurality of holes in the cover 111, gasket 112, and case 110 are “[p.7] disposed on the same axis,” at least suggesting an alignment in the y direction based upon the text of paragraph [2] of page 7. Id. at p.7.
PNG
media_image2.png
473
439
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 and 4 of Wu.
Wu also teaches a mounting hole 114, wherein “The plate 111 defines a mounting hole 114 through the gasket 112 and the casing 110 to be locked to the casing 110 by bolts.” Id. at p.5, [001]. Wu finally discloses a locking screw 132 sleeved with a spring pad 133 to lock and fix the connecting piece 130 (which appears to function as a busbar). Id. at p.5-6. Wu teaches “[t]he holes 111b are disposed on the same axis; the mounting screws are connected to the mounting holes 111b to fix the conductive electrode pieces 134 in series.” Id. at p.7.
PNG
media_image3.png
456
461
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wu at Fig. 6 and 7.
The cover and case of Wu correlates to a first and second member, and because the bolts are disclosed as penetrating the gasket, this teaches “a gasket (sealing gasket 112) located between the first member and the second member to be in contact with the first member and the second member; assembly hardware (this is read upon by the “bolts,” but more directly by “mounting screws” connected to the mounting holes 11b) fixed to a hole (holes 111b; see above analysis regarding this numeral being used multiple times within the reference) in the first member; wherein a portion of the assembly hardware, which is located between the first member and the second member and inside a through-hole (111b, see above; the Office notes that while hole 114 is also a through-hole, this lacks the required alignment) of the gasket, is in contact with the first member and the second member, and the hole in the first member and the through-hole of the gasket are aligned with each other (here, the configuration of Fig. 3 and 4, as well as the disclosure that these are in the same axis, at least suggesting the y axis, reads upon this limitation) such that the assembly hardware (a bolt) extends through the through-hole of the gasket into the hole in the first member. Wu teaches this is “convenient to install, has good connection effect, and is convenient to use; and the connecting piece 130 disposed in an arc shape can prevent the battery core 122 from being thermally expanded.” Id. at p.7.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery watertightness structure of Lee, such that it comprises the alignment of holes 111b, such that they are fixed in place by mounting screws of Wu, and comprises a gasket (sealing gasket 112 of Wu) located between the first member and the second member to be in contact with the first member and the second member.
This resulting structure reads upon “[a] battery watertightness structure comprising: a first member; a second member that covers the first member; a gasket located between the first member and the second member to be in contact with the first member and the second member; assembly hardware fixed to a hole in the first member; wherein a portion of the assembly hardware, which is located between the first member and the second member and inside a through-hole of the gasket, is in contact with the first member and the second member, and the hole in the first member and the through-hole of the gasket are aligned with each other such that the assembly hardware extends through the through-hole of the gasket into the hole in the first member.”
This would be obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention because Wu teaches a benefit to being able to fix the case 110 and the cover plate 111 and the gasket to the internal conductive electrode pieces in series, providing “good connection effect,” (indicating greater stability for the components).
However, Lee is silent as to “and counterpart assembly hardware that is assembled with the assembly hardware through a hole in the second member and fastens the first member and the second member and the gasket therebetween.”
Marukawa teaches a battery pack connected to a high voltage unit of a hybrid or electric vehicle, wherein the battery pack comprises a terminal base 11 and a terminal cover 12; this cover is fastened by inserting a second bolt 51 through the bolt insertion hole 22 in the terminal cover 12 and fastening it to an insert nut 43 arranged in the second attachment 35 in the base 11. Marukawa at [0041]. Marukawa at least suggests that an insert nut may act as the female element of a mating mechanism to affix a cover securely to an additional member, here the terminal base 11. This insert nut functions similarly to the spring pad 133, except that the insert bolt of Marukawa is the counterpart assembly hardware to a bolt 51, wherein the spring pad of Wu is affixed to a pole 131 and locking screw 131 “for connection.” Id. ; Wu at p. 5-6. Finally, Marukawa at least suggests its terminal cover and fastening structure provides a benefit to shielding, because in the alternative case wherein the terminal cover is connected to the base, “sufficient shielding of the terminal connection portions cannot be ensured.”
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify Lee such that the gasket, holes and assembly hardware of Lee are secured by the insert nut of Marukawa. In terms of the modification, this insert nut of Marukawa is in the same relative position of the spring pad of Wu, but provides an additional benefit of fitting inside the equivalent of the aligned holes 111b of Wu, simplifying the assembly. Finally, Marukawa provides at least a suggestion of a benefit to shielding of the terminal connection portions, and the holes 111b of Wu are connected to the terminal portions. This modification reads upon “counterpart assembly hardware that is assembled with the assembly hardware through a hole in the second member and fastens the first member and the second member and the gasket therebetween.” Marukawa demonstrates an insert nut may act as the female element of a mating mechanism to affix a cover securely to an additional member, and because this would provide a benefit of more stable connection of the aligned holes 111 b and their respective bolts of Wu (contained within the previous modification).
However, while Lee teaches an insert nut, Lee is silent as to “wherein the gasket includes an extension extending toward the assembly hardware which is disposed inside of the through-hole of the gasket.”
Salinas teaches a fastening assembly for use in a traction battery. Salinas at [0001]. This fastening device 100 comprises a gasket 134, which contacts a housing cover boss 156 to “establish a sealed interface SI, which can block moisture and contaminants.” Salinas at [0066 – 68], Fig. 7 – 8. This gasket 134 comprises an opening 140 which accepts a fastener 92 having a head, which sits upon the flange 144. Id. This gasket comprises an annular groove 152, as well as a washer bore 138 which receives the shank of the fastener and “permits the fastener 92 to extend through the fastening device 100.” Id. at [0059], Finally, this gasket is “secured about a radially outer perimeter of the washer 130.” Id. at [0060]. This flat surface which surrounds the washer bore 138 and accepts the washer reads upon “wherein [a] gasket includes an extension extending toward the assembly hardware which is disposed inside of the through-hole of the gasket [i.e. within opening 140 of Salinas].” Id. This is because the surface which surrounds the washer in cross-section would appear to extend towards the fastener of Salinas.
Without improperly importing limitations from the original specification, Fig. 10 of the original specification presents a gasket 43 which has an extending portion in a sideways “T” shape” which meets the bush 46. However, this is presented in cross section. Original Specification Fig. 9-10. Fig. 9 depicts the relationship in another perspective, wherein the gasket presents a hole, and the extension is, in effect, a protruding ring which the bush fits around. Id. While Fig. 7 of Salinas does not present a cross-section, the flat surface upon which the washer (serving a similar function to that of the bush of the original specification) “extends” towards the shank 108 of the fastener 92. Id. at [0059], Fig. 7. The close similarity of the flat surface of Salinas to that of the embodiment of Fig. 9 supports the interpretation that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “extending toward,” is not limited to a cross-sectional view.
PNG
media_image4.png
672
474
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7-8 of Salinas, including fastening device 100, gasket 134, opening 140, flange 144, washer bore 138, and washer 130.
PNG
media_image5.png
349
391
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
704
551
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 9-10 of the original specification, presented for comparison purposes.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery watertightness structure of Lee, such that the gasket includes an extension extending toward the assembly hardware which is disposed inside of the through-hole of the gasket, because Lee teaches a benefit and/or improvement to blocking moisture or contamination. MPEP 2144 (II) “The Expectation of some advantage is the strongest rationale for combining references.”
However, modified Lee is silent as to “wherein the portion of the assembly hardware has a thickness greater than other portions of the assembly hardware.”
Jung teaches a battery cap assembly, having an insert nut integrally molded to the vertical body portion, wherein the insert nut comprises “[0014] a thickness increasing portion protruding to the side from the vertical body portion to increase the thickness.” Jung at [0014]. Notably “[0043] The position maintaining part 500 is inserted into the position maintaining groove part 510, which is recessed on one side of the thickness increasing part 130, and the position maintaining groove part 510 so as to constrain the position of the start motor terminal 410. It includes a position retaining protrusion 520 that protrudes from the start motor terminal 41.” Jung at [0043]. This is important because Jung is indicating the thickness increasing portion interfaces with a position maintaining groove, providing a benefit to restraining other components between the insert bolt and the groove.
PNG
media_image7.png
697
537
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Jung, including the insert nut 442.
PNG
media_image8.png
397
521
media_image8.png
Greyscale
A zoomed in portion of Fig. 1 of Jung, indicating the thickness increasing portion 130, position retaining protrusion 510, and the position maintaining groove 520.
The Office notes that the “assembly hardware” of the present invention is described as “[p.8] assembly hardware (in the present embodiment, an insert bolt 110),” indicating “a portion of the assembly hardware has a thickness greater than other portions of the assembly hardware,” may be interpreted as “a portion of the [insert bolt] has a thickness greater than other portions of [the insert bolt].” This further supports the indication that the insert bolt 442 and its thickness increasing portion 130 reads upon a “portion of the assembly hardware has a thickness greater than other portions of the assembly hardware.”
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the battery watertightness structure of modified Lee, such that the insert nut of Marukawa as previously applied to Lee comprises an insert nut 442 of Jung, comprising the thickness increasing portion 130 of Jung which protrudes to secure the insert bolt to the gasket (via, for example, an extending portion which meets a groove or receptacle which mates to the extension as in Jung), because Jung teaches a benefit to restraining other components between the insert bolt and the groove (for example, a gasket).
As such, Claim 1 is obvious over Lee, in view of Wu, Marukawa, Salinas, and Jung.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over Lee.
Lee teaches a nut, but is silent as to an insert nut specifically.
Marukawa teaches a battery pack connected to a high voltage unit of a hybrid or electric vehicle, wherein the battery pack comprises a terminal base 11 and a terminal cover 12; this cover is fastened by inserting a second bolt 51 through the bolt insertion hole 22 in the terminal cover 12 and fastening it to an insert nut 43 arranged in the second attachment 35 in the base 11. Marukawa at [0041]. Marukawa at least suggests that an insert nut may act as the female element of a mating mechanism to affix a cover securely to an additional member, here the terminal base 11.
As such, Claim 3 is obvious over Lee, in view of Wu, Marukawa, Salinas, and Jung.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 relies upon Claim 1.
Lee teaches a gasket which, in addition to the frame shape, forms a “U” in cross section as shown in Fig. 2, 3A – 5 and 7. Lee at Fig. 3A – 5, 7. Because “an extension extending towards” may include, for example, the arms of the U which connect to 112a adjacent to 113a, this reads upon an “extension” towards the assembly hardware.
As such, Claim 6 is obvious over Lee, in view of Wu, Marukawa, Salinas, and Jung.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over Lee.
Lee teaches a nut, but is silent as to an insert nut specifically.
Marukawa teaches a battery pack connected to a high voltage unit of a hybrid or electric vehicle. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “battery system assembly,” includes a battery pack within an electric vehicle. Lee teaches a cover (cover 120 of Lee). As such, Claim 8 is obvious over Lee, in view of Wu, Marukawa, Salinas, and Jung.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over the modification of Lee.
Lee teaches the height of the portion of the assembly hardware, which is located between the first member and the second member, is configured to support the compression limit of the gasket against an axial force when the counterpart assembly hardware is assembled between the first member and the second member. Lee at Fig. 3A, [0050]. A claim term is functional when it recites a feature “by what it does rather than by what it is” (e.g., as evidenced by its specific structure or specific ingredients). MPEP 2173.05 (g). Here, the “height” is describing a function of the assembly hardware, which itself is defined insofar as it is a) fixed to a hole in the first member, b) assembled with the counterpart assembly hardware, and c) has a “height” configured to support a compression limit as described in the final clause of Claim 1. Thus we can interpret this “height” limitation as further describing the assembly hardware rather than as a discrete component. With this in mind, “height” and the further description of the height supporting the compression limit of the gasket against an axial force is a functional limitation defining, for an example, a bolt of Lee by what it does (screwing into a hole until the compression limit of the device prevents further compression). Further, the Office notes that all bolts support the compression limit of the two or more components they are connecting against an axial force, because an axial force is the force acting along the axis or centerpiece, and a bolt due to its mechanical properties supports the compression limit (which here is taken to mean, “prevents further compression”) of the two or more components.
Thus, it is Office’s position that the “height” of assembly hardware may correspond to the extent of fastening or “height” of a bolt, screw, or other similar insert. As such, the “height” is necessarily configured to support a compression limit because the physical characteristics of the gasket contribute to the extent to which, for example, a bolt may be screwed into the fastening portions. Lee at [0039 – 50].
As such, Claim 10 is obvious over Lee, in view of Wu, Marukawa, Salinas, and Jung.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over Lee.
Lee is silent as to the portion of the assembly hardware being spaced apart from the gasket.
To the extent that a component which has a portion within a through-hole another component may be “spaced apart” from said component, the Office interprets this limitation as requiring that this portion has a segment which extends outside of the through-hole such that it is spaced apart.
Wu also teaches a mounting hole 114, wherein “The plate 111 defines a mounting hole 114 through the gasket 112 and the casing 110 to be locked to the casing 110 by bolts.” Id. at p.5, [001]. Wu finally discloses a locking screw 132 sleeved with a spring pad 133 to lock and fix the connecting piece 130 (which appears to function as a busbar). Id. at p.5-6. Wu teaches “[t]he holes 111b are disposed on the same axis; the mounting screws are connected to the mounting holes 111b to fix the conductive electrode pieces 134 in series.” Id. at p.7. This reads upon a “portion of the assembly hardware, which is located between the first member and the second member and inside a through-hole of the gasket, is spaced apart from the gasket,” wherein the portion of the mounting screws, namely the screw head, disposed upon the plate 111.
As such, Claim 15 is obvious over Lee, in view of Wu, Marukawa, Salinas, and Jung.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Wu, Marukawa, Salinas, and Jung, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Bielawski, et. al. (CN 101609876 B; see EPO Machine translation attached with previous action for citation).
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over Lee.
Lee teaches the fastening member 20 may be a bolt. Lee at [0039 – 47]. However, this is not directly described as an insert bolt.
Bielawski teaches a battery having a locking gasket, flat gasket, and an “insert bolt.” Bielawski at [0029]. This insert has a rear / back wall designed to prevent deformation of a bolt inserted within the “threaded opening in the insert,” and to protect the battery from damage. Id.
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery watertightness structure of Lee, wherein the assembly hardware includes an insert bolt of Bielawski, because Bielawski teaches a benefit to protecting the battery from damage.
As such, Claim 2 is obvious over Lee, in view of Wu, Marukawa, Salinas, and Jung, and further in view of Bielawski.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Wu, Marukawa, Salinas, and Jung, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Newman, et. al (US20170225558A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over the modification of Lee.
Lee teaches a battery watertightness structure, but is silent as to a blind bolt.
Newman teaches a fastening mechanism for connecting a battery pack within a vehicle to cross rails, or specifically frame structure 28; this fastener 68 may be a blind bolt, which permits “quick[]” attachment and detachment to facilitate exchanging of the battery packs 20 (e.g., swapping a discharged pack with a charged pack). Newman at [0041].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify Lee such that it includes the blind bolt of Newman, because Newman teaches a benefit to quick attachment and detachment.
As such, Claim 4 is obvious over Lee, in view of Wu, Marukawa, Salinas, and Jung, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Newman.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Wu, Marukawa, Salinas, and Jung, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurokawa, et. al. (US 20130136970 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over the modification of Lee.
Lee teaches a battery watertightness structure, but is silent as to a blind nut.
Kurokawa teaches a power source apparatus made up of a plurality of battery blocks connected to a floor panel or base panel, wherein these stacks are connected via blind-nuts 43. Kurokawa at [0017]. Kurokawa teaches “[w]ith this structure, when the endplates are attached to a floor-panel or base-panel, there is no need to thread nuts onto bolts extending from the underside. This results in labor-saving for attachment operations, avoids having to allocate space for nuts on the undersides of the floor-panels and base-panel, and contributes to overall size reduction.” Id.
PNG
media_image9.png
407
498
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Kurokawa.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify Lee such that it includes the blind nut of Kurokawa, because Kurokawa teaches a benefit to labor-saving and size reduction. As such, Claim 5 is obvious over Lee, in view of Wu, Marukawa, Salinas, and Jung, and further in view of Kurokawa,
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Wu, Marukawa, Salinas, and Jung, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Vu, et. al. (WO 2011153312 A2; see EPO Machine translation attached with previous action for citation).
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over the modification of Lee. Lee is silent as to the makeup of the first member.
Vu teaches a prismatic battery structure having a sealing gasket 30, and a base member 10 formed from steel or aluminum. Vu at [0026, 30]. Vu at least suggests that a metal such as steel or aluminum is a conventionally effective material for a unitary seamless base member, and Vu teaches directly that the “geometry of the housing optimizes thermal management,” which also would be benefitted by the use of aluminum. Vu at Abstract.
PNG
media_image10.png
157
314
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Vu.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify Lee with the steel or aluminum first member of Vu, because Vu teaches a benefit to thermal management in its structure.
As such, Claim 7 is obvious over Lee, in view of Wu, Marukawa, Salinas, and Jung, and further in view of Vu.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being over Lee, in view of Wu, Marukawa, Salinas, and Jung, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of You, et. al. (KR 20180047791 A; see EPO Machine translation attached with previous action for citation).
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over the modification of Lee.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “maintenance window cover,” this may also include a removable cover which when removed forms a window. As such, the cover 120 of Lee reads upon this limitation. However, You reads upon this limitation more directly.
You teaches a high-voltage junction for an electric vehicle connected to a battery system assembly, having a main body case 110, having an opening hole 11 which “may correspond to a kind of inspection window.” You at [0097]. Further, You teaches the top plate 114 is made of any one of transparent, opaque, or translucent materials, which reads upon a “maintenance window cover.” Id. at [0098]. This provides the benefit that “the operator can visually confirm the inside of the main body case 110 without removing the top plate 114 from the main body case 110.” Id.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery watertightness structure of Lee, such that the first member includes a cover of a battery system assembly (BSA) for an electric vehicle as in Lee and You, and the second member includes a maintenance window cover of You, because You teaches the benefit of visual confirmation without the removal of the cover.
As such, Claim 9 is obvious over Lee, in view of Wu, Marukawa, Salinas, and Jung, and further in view of You.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10, 15 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. Claims 11-14 remain withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached on (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725