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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/17/26 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.
Claim(s) 4-9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sora (US 2015/0372260 A1, cited by applicant) in view of Mitamura et al. (JP 2002-245993 A, hereinafter Mitamura, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 4. Sora teaches a battery module (Fig. 9, item 2) comprising:
a battery cell stack (item 30) in which a plurality of battery cells (items 10A-10D) are stacked; and
a first L-shaped frame (item 210) and a second L-shaped frame (item 110) that together house the battery cell stack therein,
the first L-shaped frame formed of an upper surface (item 211) and a first side surface (item 212), and
the second L-shaped frame formed of a lower surface (item 111) and a second side surface (item 112),
wherein the first L-shaped frame and the second L-shaped frame together surround four surfaces of the battery cell stack (Fig. 9).
Sora fails to teach that a protrusion portion is formed in one of the first or second L-shaped frames, a groove portion is formed at a position corresponding to the protrusion portion another of the first or second L-shaped frames, the first and second L-shaped frames are coupled to one another by an engagement between the protrusion portion and the groove portion, the engagement of the protrusion portion and the groove portion is formed between a plurality of surfaces coupled by welding the first L-shaped frame and the second L-shaped frame, and the plurality of surfaces coupled by welding the first L-shaped frame and the second L-shaped frame are located in portions except for a protrusion-groove coupling structure between the protrusion portion and the groove portion.
The invention of Mitamura encompasses a battery pack. Mitamura teaches that a protrusion portion (Fig. 5, item 2c) is formed in the lower frame (item 2), a groove portion (item 1c) is formed at a position corresponding to the protrusion portion in the upper frame (item 1), the upper and lower frames are coupled to one another by an engagement between the protrusion portion and the groove portion (Fig. 5 & 6), and the engagement of the protrusion portion and the groove portion is formed between a plurality of surfaces coupled by welding the first case and the second case (Fig. 5 & 6, P5), and the plurality of surfaces coupled by welding the first case and the second case are located in portions except for a protrusion-groove coupling structure between the protrusion portion and the groove portion (P5).
In view of Mitamura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Sora to employ a protrusion portion formed in the first L-shaped frame and a groove portion is formed at a position corresponding to the protrusion portion in the second L-shaped frames, form the engagement of the protrusion portion and the groove portion between a plurality of surfaces coupled by welding the first L-shaped frame and the second L-shaped frame, and the plurality of surfaces coupled by welding the first L-shaped frame and the second L-shaped frame are located in portions except for a protrusion-groove coupling structure between the protrusion portion and the groove portion, since Mitamura teaches the advantages of using them, which is to achieve desired joint strength (abstract).
Re Claim 5. The combination teaches wherein: the first L-shaped frame has a first raised portion (Sora, Fig. 9, item 213) protruding downward from a side end edge of the upper surface of the first L-shaped frame, the first raised portion being engaged with an upper end portion of the second side surface of the second L-shaped frame (Fig. 2), and the second L-shaped frame has a second raised portion (item 113) protruding upward from a side end edge of the lower surface of the second L-shaped frame, the second raised portion being engaged with a lower end portion of the first side surface of the first L-shaped frame (Fig. 2).
Re Claim 6. The combination teaches wherein: the protrusion portion (Mitamura, Fig. 5, item 2c) is a first protrusion portion protruding from the first raised portion (Sora, Fig. 9, item 213), and the groove portion (Mitamura, Fig. 5, item 1c) is a first groove portion extending into formed on the upper end portion of the second side surface (Sora, Fig. 9, item 112), and the first and second L-shaped frames are coupled to one another while the protrusion portions and the groove portions are coupled to one another (Mitamura, Fig. 5 & 6).
The combination fails to teach that the second raised portion has a second protruding portion protruding therefrom, and the first side surface has a second groove portion extending into the lower end portion of the first side surface, as Tanabe teaches that the protrusions are located on the upper frame and the grooves are located on the lower frame.
However, as Sora teaches that the first and second L-shaped frames have the same shape (para. 43), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Sora in view of Mitamura to employ the second raised portion having a second protruding portion protruding therefrom, and the first side surface having a second groove portion extending into the lower end portion of the first side surface.
Re Claim 7. The combination teaches wherein: the first and second protrusion portions protrude from the outer edge portion of the first and second raised portions, respectively (Mitamura, Fig. 5).
Re Claim 8. The combination teaches each of the first and second protrusion portions includes protrusions extending from a center and opposite sides of the first and second raised portions (Mitamura, Fig. 5), respectively, and each of the first and second groove portions includes grooves located at positions engaged with the respective protrusion portions (Mitamura, Fig. 5).
Re Claim 9. The combination teaches wherein: a lower surface of the first raised portion and an upper end surface of the second side surface, and an upper surface of the second raised portion and a lower end surface of the first side surface are joined by welding, respectively (Mitamura, P5).
Re Claim 16. The combination teaches wherein the first L-shaped frame and the second L-shaped frame are identical to each other and have a symmetrical structure to each other (Sora, Fig. 9), and wherein the protrusion portions and the groove portions are located symmetrically about a center of a coupling surface between the first L-shaped frame and the second L-shaped frame (Mitamura, Fig. 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 4 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.
Newly applied reference, Mitamura addresses the new limitations.
Conclusion
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 PM.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
5/27/2026
Prosecution Insights