DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed July 7th 2025 has been entered. The amendment does not place the application in condition for allowance. Claims 1-4, 6, & 8 remain pending in the application. Claims 5 & 7 were cancelled by the Applicant, and Claims 10-13 were added. The 112(d) rejection of Claim 7 is withdrawn due to cancellation of the claim. The 112(b) rejection of Claim 6 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. The arguments to the 103 rejections of the claims are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained. New rejections follow.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “left end” of the reinforcing member and the “right end” of the reinforcing member from Claim 12 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a lower part of the reinforcing member…is embedded in the bottom plate”. The specification makes no mention of a lower part of the reinforcing member being embedded in the bottom plate. Therefore, the limitation of amended Claim 1 is new matter.
Claims 2-13, as they depend from Claim 1, are thus also rejected.
Claim 12 recites “wherein a left end of the reinforcing member includes three screw holes, and a right end of the reinforcing member includes three screw holes”. The specification makes no mention of left and right ends of the reinforcing member. Therefore, the limitation of Claim 12 is new matter. Claim 13, as it depends from Claim 12, is thus also rejected.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishitobi US 2022/0344752 A1, and further in view of Yoshimura et al. US 2018/0375075 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Ishitobi discloses a battery case comprising a housing (a battery case comprising a tray and a frame [0073]; tray Item 120 Figure 4; frame Item 110 Figure 4), configured to accommodate a battery stack (battery Item 30 is housed in the housing portion Item 120e Figure 4 [0081]).
Ishitobi discloses that the housing comprises an abutting wall (the tray has projecting portions Items 120f Figure 4 that form inner wall partitions [0081]). Ishitobi discloses that the abutting walls (projecting portions) are formed projecting inwards when the tray is formed from one piece of resin [0082], thus Ishitobi discloses that the abutting walls are formed on the inner side of the housing. In regards to the limitation “abutting walls are cast integrally with the housing”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase “cast integrally”. It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
Ishitobi discloses that the tray comprises a bottom wall and a peripheral wall that form a housing portion with the projecting portions, wherein the battery is housed in the housing portion [0081] and the projecting portion is in contact with one side of the battery, thus Ishitobi discloses that the abutting wall (projecting portion) is bearing a load from the battery stack (see Ishitobi Annotated Figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Ishitobi discloses that the housing further comprises a reinforcing member (a frame with cross members [0077]; Figure 4 frame Item 110 with frame-shaped body 111 and cross members Items 112) that is pressed into the abutting wall [0081]. Ishitobi discloses that the abutting wall (projecting portions of the tray) are made of a resin [0080], and the reinforcing member (frame with cross members) is made of steel [0075], thus Ishitobi discloses that the reinforcing member is made of a material that is more rigid than the abutting wall. In regards to the limitation “a reinforcing member…cast into the abutting wall by enveloped casting”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase “enveloped casting”. It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
Ishitobi discloses the housing includes a bottom plate (Figure 5 Item 120a) that is at a lower part of the housing in the vertical direction (see Annotated Figure 5 below). Ishitobi discloses, in Figure 5, that the abutting wall is connected to the bottom plate and is perpendicular to the bottom plate. Also shown in Annotated Figure 5, Ishitobi discloses that a lower part of the reinforcing member in the vertical direction extends to the bottom plate and is embedded in the bottom plate of the housing.
PNG
media_image2.png
408
693
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5
Ishitobi further illustrates in Figure 6 that the reinforcing member (frame with cross members) has an upper surface in the vertical direction that is exposed from the abutting wall (projecting portions 120f).
PNG
media_image3.png
377
794
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ishitobi Annotated Figure 6
Ishitobi fails to specifically disclose a battery stack that is pressurized in a stacking direction.
Yoshimura discloses a battery case that accommodate a pressurized battery stack [Abstract]. More specifically, Yoshimura discloses battery cells pressurized in a stacking direction (lamination direction) accommodated in a battery case (as shown in Figure 6 wherein the battery cells Item 2 are compressed in the lamination direction Y [0043]).
PNG
media_image4.png
515
537
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Yoshimura Annotated Figure 6
Yoshimura discloses that a battery stack pressurized in a stacking direction improves the performance of the battery cells [0009]. Yoshimura further discloses that a battery case that can accommodate a pressurized battery cell simplifies the construction and manufacturing of a battery since it is not necessary to pressurize the battery using other attachments like a binding band [0009].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the pressurized battery stack of Yoshimura in the battery case of Ishitobi to achieve a battery with improved battery cell performance and reduced manufacturing complexity.
Thus, modified Ishitobi discloses that the battery stack is pressurized in a stacking direction (as modified by Yoshimura) that is perpendicular to the vertical direction as shown in Modified Ishitobi Annotated Figure 3 below, and further that the abutting wall is perpendicular to the stacking direction:
PNG
media_image5.png
523
1206
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Modified Ishitobi Annotated Figure 3
Regarding Claim 2, Ishitobi discloses that the housing further comprises side walls (“peripheral walls” Figure 4 Item 120c) [0081] that are perpendicular to the bottom plate and parallel to the stacking direction, as modified by Yoshimura (see Modified Ishitobi Annotated Figure 4 below). Ishitobi discloses that the reinforcing member (cross member of frame) extends to one of the side walls of the housing and that the abutting wall (projecting portion) connects to the side walls (see Modified Ishitobi Annotated Figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
658
1001
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Modified Ishitobi Annotated Figure 4
Regarding Claim 3, as mentioned with regards to Claim 2 above, Ishitobi discloses that the housing has a pair of side walls that are parallel to each other (see Annotated Figure 4 above) and the abutting wall is connected to both side walls (see Annotated Figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image7.png
625
682
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4
Regarding Claim 6, Ishitobi discloses that reinforcing member (frame) and the top cover can be jointly fastened together by a screw [0083], further shown in Figure 2 wherein the frame 110 is joined with the top cover 130 by a screw, thus Ishitobi discloses that the reinforcing member (frame) further comprises a screw hole.
Regarding Claim 8, Ishitobi discloses in Figure 4 that the battery case comprises a plurality of projecting portions 120f, formed on the inside of the housing (opening 120b of housing Figure 4) [0081]. Thus Ishitobi discloses that the abutting wall includes a first abutting wall and a second abutting wall on the inner side of the housing (see Annotated Figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image8.png
719
770
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4
Regarding Claim 9, Ishitobi discloses that a lower surface of the reinforcing member in the vertical direction is covered with the bottom plate, see Ishitobi Annotated Figure 5 below.
PNG
media_image9.png
447
692
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5
Claims 4 & 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishitobi and Yoshimura as applied to claims 1 & 2 above, and further in view of Keller et al. US 2016/0118635 A1.
Regarding Claim 4, Ishitobi is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. However, Ishitobi fails to disclose that the reinforcing member includes a flange on at least a left end or a right end, and the flange embedded in the side wall.
Keller discloses a battery housing comprising two side walls (Figure 1 Items 12 & 14) and a reinforcing member (“bulkhead plate” Figure 1 Item 20) that is connected to the housing side walls (see Keller Annotated Figure 1 below). Keller discloses that the reinforcing member (bulkhead plates) has flanges (vertical guides Figure 1 Items 22 & 23) that are embedded in the side walls (vertical guide 22 is part of side wall 12 and vertical guide 23 is part of side wall 14) [0026].
Keller discloses that a battery housing with this configuration provides additional reinforcement [0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the flanges of the reinforcing member embedded in the side walls as suggested by Keller to modify the reinforcing members of Ishitobi to achieve a battery housing with additional reinforcement.
Thus, as shown in modified Ishitobi Annotated Figures 4 & 7, with Keller Figure 1, modified Ishitobi discloses flanges at the ends of the reinforcing members (cross members) that are embedded in the side walls (surrounded by side walls of tray):
PNG
media_image10.png
743
1618
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Modified Ishitobi Annotated Figures 4 & 7
Regarding Claim 10, modified Ishitobi discloses, as mentioned with regards to Claim 4, that the housing includes a pair of side walls that are parallel to each other (see Annotated Figure 4 above with regards to Claim 3). Modified Ishitobi further discloses that the reinforcing member has flanges on both ends as modified by Keller above, thus modified Ishitobi discloses that the reinforcing member has a first flange on a left end and a second flange on a right end. Modified Ishitobi further discloses, with the modification of Keller, that the first flange and the second flange are embedded in the pair of side walls (shown in modified Ishitobi Annotated Figures 4 & 7 above).
Regarding Claim 11, as mentioned with regards to Claim 10, modified Ishitobi discloses, with the modification of Keller, that the first flange and the second flange are completely surrounded by the side walls of the tray (Item 120c Figure 4) and therefore embedded in the pair of side walls (shown in modified Ishitobi Annotated Figures 4 & 7 above).
Claims 1, 6, 8, 12, & 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takasaki et al. US 2009/0236162 A1 in view of Yoshimura et al. US 2018/0375075 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Takasaki discloses a housing (battery case Figure 3 Item 50) configured to accommodate a battery stack (battery module comprising a plurality of battery cells [0044]) in an electric vehicle [0013] wherein the housing comprises a tray member (Figure 3 Item 51) with insert structures and reinforcement plates embedded in the walls of the tray [0013, 0040, 0049-0051]. Takasaki further discloses that the tray member comprises partition walls (Figure 6 Item 51f) and side walls (Figure 6 Item 51c) on an inner side of the housing as shown in Figure 6. Takasaki discloses that the walls of the housing make battery containing sections (Figure 6 Items 55, 56, 57) that support the battery module [0044], thus Takasaki discloses that the abutting walls (partition walls and side walls) bear a load of the battery stack. In regards to the limitation “abutting walls are cast integrally with the housing”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase “cast integrally”. It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
Takasaki discloses that reinforcement plates (Figure 6 Item 201) are embedded in the partition walls [0051] and insert members (Figure 6 Item 200b) are embedded in the side walls [0050]. This is further shown in Figure 6 with reinforcement plates 201 in partition walls 51f, and Figure 7 with side wall 51c comprising insert member 200b [0050]. Takasaki discloses that the abutting walls (partition walls and side walls) are made of resin [0053] and the insert members are made of metal [0049] and that the insert members reinforce the walls of the tray [0050]. Thus Takasaki discloses reinforcing members embedded in the abutting walls and made of a material more rigid than the abutting walls. In regards to the limitation “a reinforcing member…cast into the abutting wall by enveloped casting”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase “enveloped casting”. It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
Takasaki further discloses that the housing (battery case) comprises a bottom plate (bottom wall Figure 6 Item 51e) at a lower part of the housing in the vertical direction (see Takasaki Annotated Figure 6 below), and that the abutting wall is connected to the bottom plate and positioned perpendicular to the bottom plate.
PNG
media_image11.png
498
1037
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Takasaki Annotated Figure 6
Takasaki discloses that the tray is formed by stamping resin that forms the bottom wall, side walls, and partition walls of the tray [0053] and that the resin is embedded with reinforcement plates [0042, 0051]. Thus, through forming the tray in this way, Takasaki discloses that a lower part of the reinforcing member is embedded in the bottom plate as the bottom plate (bottom wall) is integrally formed with the partition walls where the reinforcement plates are embedded (i.e. formed integrally from same resin material).
Takasaki discloses that an upper surface of the reinforcing member in the vertical direction is exposed from the abutting wall, as shown in Annotated Figure 9 below.
PNG
media_image12.png
683
649
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Takasaki Annotated Figure 9
Takasaki fails to specifically disclose a battery stack that is pressurized in a stacking direction.
Yoshimura discloses a battery case that accommodate a pressurized battery stack [Abstract]. More specifically, Yoshimura discloses battery cells pressurized in a stacking direction (lamination direction) accommodated in a battery case (as shown in Figure 6 wherein the battery cells Item 2 are compressed in the lamination direction Y [0043]).
PNG
media_image4.png
515
537
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Yoshimura Annotated Figure 6
Yoshimura discloses that a battery stack pressurized in a stacking direction improves the performance of the battery cells [0009]. Yoshimura further discloses that a battery case that can accommodate a pressurized battery cell simplifies the construction and manufacturing of a battery since it is not necessary to pressurize the battery using other attachments like a binding band [0009].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the pressurized battery stack of Yoshimura in the battery case of Takasaki to achieve a battery with improved battery cell performance and reduced manufacturing complexity.
Thus, modified Takasaki discloses that the battery stack is pressurized in a stacking direction (as modified by Yoshimura) that is perpendicular to the vertical direction as shown in Modified Takasaki Annotated Figure 6 below, and further that the abutting wall is perpendicular to the stacking direction:
PNG
media_image13.png
523
1221
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Modified Takasaki Annotated Figure 6
Regarding Claim 6, Takasaki further discloses embedded nuts in the reinforcing members (insert members) (Figure 6 Items 203) [0054] that are for accommodating bolt screws [0066], thus Takasaki discloses screw holes in the reinforcing members.
Regarding Claim 8, Takasaki discloses in Figure 6 that the battery case comprises a plurality of partition walls, formed on the inside of the housing. Thus Takasaki discloses that the abutting wall includes a first abutting wall and a second abutting wall on the inner side of the housing (see Annotated Figure 6 below).
PNG
media_image14.png
614
893
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Takasaki Annotated Figure 6
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood by the examiner, Takasaki discloses, as shown in Figure 6, that there are three screw holes (embedded nuts 203) in each of the reinforcing members on both sides of the battery housing (see Takasaki Annotated Figure 6) [0053]. Thus, Takasaki discloses that a left end of the reinforcing member (200c or 200f in Figure 6) has three screw holes and a right end of the reinforcing member (200b or 200e in Figure 6) has three screw holes.
PNG
media_image15.png
614
893
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Takasaki Annotated Figure 6
Regarding Claim 13, as shown in Takasaki Annotated Figure 6 below, the screw holes extend perpendicular to the stacking direction (as modified by Yoshimura) and parallel with the bottom plate (51e), thus modified Takasaki discloses a battery case with the limitations of Claim 13.
PNG
media_image16.png
568
767
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Takasaki Annotated Figure 6
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 7th 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ishitobi does not teach that the upper surface of the reinforcing member is exposed from the abutting wall. Examiner respectfully points out that, as stated in the rejection above, Ishitobi does disclose that an upper surface of the reinforcing member (frame with cross members) is exposed from the abutting wall as shown in Annotated Figure 6 above in the rejection. The claim as presently written does not limit the upper surface of the reinforcing member to be in a specific location of the reinforcing member (i.e. – in the cross member section versus at either of the two ends), and thus Ishitobi teaches this amended limitation of Claim 1. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Ishitobi does not teach that a lower part of the reinforcing member is “embedded” in the bottom plate of the housing. Examiner respectfully points out that, as stated in the rejection above, Ishitobi does disclose that a lower part of the reinforcing member (lower part of one of the cross members) is “embedded” in the bottom plate as shown in Annotated Figure 5 in the rejection above. Thus Ishitobi teaches this amended limitation of Claim 1. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached on (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726