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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuasa (US 2014/0315071) and Suzuki (US 2012/0148911).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 9 and 15, Yuasa discloses a first housing (bottom case 2) and a second housing (lid 3), wherein at least one protrusion is disposed in the second housing (protrution 34 is on the lower face of lid 3 as depicted in Fig. 7, for example); and
the first housing (bottom case 2) comprises a bottom wall (bottom of case 2) and a side wall disposed on a peripheral edge of the bottom wall to form an accommodating space together with the bottom wall (side walls are the walls enclosing the space inside the bottom case 2), the sidewall comprising an inner surface and a top surface;
wherein the second housing is disposed on a side of the side wall away from the bottom wall (it’s a lid, opposite the bottom of the case), a bottom peripheral surface of the second housing is disposed on the top surface of the side wall continuously contacting along the bottom peripheral surface of the second housing at the top surface of the sidewall (as illustrated in Fig. 5 and annotated Fig. 20 below), and the at least one protrusion is accommodated in the accommodating space and comes in contact with an inner surface of the side wall (see Fig. 6 where protrusion 34 is inside the case and comes into contact with the inner surface of case 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
661
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Yuasa teaches a bottom surface of the second housing and a bottom peripheral surface which is in contact with the tip surface of the side wall (as illustrated in annotated Fig. 20 above). However, Yuasa does not teach a raised portion of the bottom surface extending above the bottom peripheral surface of the second housing.
Suzuki also discloses a battery module (see abstract).
Suzuki, like Yuasa, teaches a first housing (bottom housing 2) and a second housing (lid, 4). Suzuki goes on to teach that the second housing (lid) comprises a raised portion (as illustrated in annotated Fig. 2 below). Suzuki teaches such a configuration in order to provide rigidity to the cover without increasing the weight (paragraph 17).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the protruding portion of the cover, as taught by Suzuki, to the lid of Yuasa in order to provide rigidity to the cover without increasing the weight.
PNG
media_image2.png
538
777
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2, 3, 10 and 11, Yuasa further discloses the at least one protrusion comprises a plurality of protrusions, and the plurality of the protrusions are arranged in succession (such as in Fig. 11 which illustrates multiple protrusions in succession).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Yuasa further discloses a cross-section of the at least one protrusion is fan-shaped, oval, triangular, square, pentagonal, or circular (see Fig. 20 which gives an example of a protrusion with a fan, oval or circular shape).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Yuasa further discloses a distance between an end of the at least one protrusion facing towards the first housing and the side wall is 0 to 100 millimeters (see Fig. 6 which illustrates the protrusion in contact with the sidewall, or 0 mm distance).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Yuasa further discloses the at least one protrusion is formed on an inner surface of the second housing (see protrusion 34 in Fig. 6), and a groove (35) is formed at a location, corresponding to the at least one protrusion, on an outer surface of the second housing (as depicted in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 17, Yuasa further discloses the battery further comprises a pole (9), and the pole is disposed on the second housing (as depicted in Fig. 1 where pole 9 is located on the lid 3).
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) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuasa (US 2014/0315071) in view of Kurata (US 2013/0130100).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Yuasa discloses a height of the protrusion in relation to the thickness of the lid/second housing in Fig. 20 and shows that the lid thickness is thicker than the protrusion height.
Kurata also discloses a battery housing (see abstract).
Kurata, like Yuasa, teaches a first and second housing (or base and lid of the housing, 1 and 2 in Fig. 20, for example). Kurata goes on to disclose that the lid portion has a thickness in the range of 1-2mm (paragraph 122). Kurata teaches such a thickness as a preferable size such that it gives structure integrity to the battery cell.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the thickness of Kurata in the lid of Yuasa, which would yield a protrusion thickness off less than 50mm in Yuasa, in order to provide a lid that is structurally capable of being a lid to a battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 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.
Relevant Prior Art
US 2010/0279156 – Discloses a lid that comprises a peripheral surface that contacts the top surface of a housing, similar to that claimed.
US 2013/0316225 – Discloses a lid for a battery case that comprises protrusions in the vicinity of the terminal posts, similar to that disclosed and claimed.
KR 20000069844 A - Discloses a lid for a battery case that comprises protrusions in the vicinity of the terminal posts, similar to that disclosed and claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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 at 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725