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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pasma et al. (US 2017/0092923), hereinafter Pasma.
Regarding Claim 1, Pasma suggests an electronic enclosure (e.g., 300(302), 400(402), etc., Fig. 3), comprising: a first wall (1st wall, see solid arrow or dashed arrow) extending along a first direction and a second wall (2nd wall, see solid arrow or dashed arrow) extending along a second direction crosswise (i.e., perpendicular) to the first direction (see annotated Fig. 3), wherein the first wall and the second wall cooperatively define at least a portion of an internal volume of the electronic enclosure (300); and an interface (310, Fig. 3) formed between the first wall and the second wall such that the first wall and the second wall extend from one another via the interface, wherein the interface comprises a notch. With respect to the “notch configured to concentrate stress caused by pressure buildup within the internal volume”, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, MPEP 2112.01. In this case, the structure suggested in the prior art and claims is the same, thus the claimed properties (i.e., “configured to concentrate stress…”) are presumed inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
PNG
media_image1.png
849
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Pasma suggests the notch (i.e., 310) comprises an arcuate portion extending from the first wall to the second wall, see Fig. 3.
Regarding Claim 3, Pasma suggests the first wall extends linearly to a first end of the arcuate portion (i.e., 310), and the second wall extends linearly to a second end of the arcuate portion, see Fig. 3.
Regarding Claim 4, Pasma suggests the arcuate portion is a first arcuate portion (B), the notch comprises a second arcuate portion (A) extending from a first end of the first arcuate portion (B) and a third arcuate portion (C) extending from a second end of the first arcuate portion (B), the first wall extends to the second arcuate portion (A), and the second wall extends to the third arcuate portion (C), see annotated Fig. 3.
Regarding Claim 8, Pasma suggests an electronic enclosure (300(302), 400(402), etc.), comprising: an arcuate portion (e.g., 310, see Fig. 3); a first wall extending from a first end of the arcuate portion and a second wall extending from a second end of the arcuate portion (310), see annotated Fig. 3, wherein the first wall, the second wall, and the arcuate portion cooperatively define at least a portion of an internal volume of the electronic enclosure, the arcuate portion curves inwardly with respect to the first wall and the second wall. With respect to “the arcuate portion is configured to concentrate stress caused by pressure buildup within the internal volume”, as with the rejection of claim 1, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, MPEP 2112.01. In this case, the structure suggested in the prior art and claims is the same, thus the claimed properties (i.e., “configured to concentrate stress….”) are presumed inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 9, Pasma suggests a third wall (e.g., 3rd wall, labelled in annotated Fig. 3) extending from the first wall, wherein the arcuate portion is configured to divert stress away from the third wall during the pressure buildup within the internal volume.
Regarding Claim 10, Pasma suggests the first wall and the second wall are oriented generally perpendicular to one another, see Fig. 3.
Regarding Claim 11, Pasma suggests the first wall spans a first dimension in a first direction, the second wall spans a second dimension in a second direction, and the first dimension and the second dimension are different from one another (e.g., 1st wall (dashed arrow) is longer than the 2nd wall (dashed arrow)).
Regarding Claim 12, Pasma suggests a base (e.g., 402a) that comprises the arcuate portion, the first wall, and the second wall, see e.g., Figs. 3 and 4, where the 402c of 402a forms the walls and accurate portion.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 12-14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (WO 2021196027, translated with US 2023/0037967), hereinafter Li.
Fig. 5
PNG
media_image2.png
435
1164
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8
PNG
media_image3.png
889
1087
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 1 and 7, Li suggests an electronic enclosure (e.g., 200, 100a), Figs. 3, 6-8 ), comprising a first wall (1st wall) extending along a first direction and a second wall (2nd wall) extending along a second direction crosswise (i.e., perpendicular) to the first direction (see annotated Fig. 8), wherein the first wall and the second wall cooperatively define at least a portion of an internal volume of the electronic enclosure; and an interface (see annotated Fig. 8) formed between the first wall and the second wall such that the first wall and the second wall extend from one another via the interface, wherein the interface comprises a notch. The first wall and the second wall extend from one another via the interface to arrange the electronic enclosure in an L-shape configuration, see Fig. 8. With respect to the “configured to concentrate stress …” recitation, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, MPEP 2112.01. In this case, the structure suggested in the prior art and claims is the same, thus the claimed properties (i.e., “configured to concentrate stress…”) are presumed inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 8, Li suggests an electronic enclosure (e.g., 200(100a)), comprising an arcuate portion (see “interface” in annotated Fig. 8); a first wall extending from a first end of the arcuate portion and a second wall extending from a second end of the arcuate portion, see annotated Fig. 8, wherein the first wall, the second wall, and the arcuate portion cooperatively define at least a portion of an internal volume of the electronic enclosure, the arcuate portion curves inwardly with respect to the first wall and the second wall. With respect to “the arcuate portion is configured to concentrate stress caused by pressure buildup within the internal volume”, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, MPEP 2112.01. In this case, the structure suggested in the prior art and claims is the same, thus the claimed properties (i.e., “configured to concentrate stress…”) are presumed inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claims 12-13, Li suggests a base (e.g., see annotated Fig. 5) that comprises the arcuate portion (1st interface), the first wall, and the second wall, see e.g., Figs. 5 and 8, and a cover (see annotated Fig. 5) that comprises: an additional arcuate portion (2nd interface), a first edge extending from a first end of the additional arcuate portion; and a second edge extending from a second end of the additional arcuate portion, see annotated Figs. 5 and 8.
Regarding Claim 14, Li suggests the arcuate portion of the base and the additional arcuate portion of the cover are in engagement with one another in an assembled configuration of the electronic enclosure, see e.g., seal 31 in Figs. 5 and 8.
Regarding Claim 16, Li suggests an electronic enclosure (200, Figs. 7-8) made from a packaging film (100a, see Fig. 3) that is folded at a first edge 11 (see Figs. 4-5, 7-8), thereby forming a base and cover (see annotated Fig. 5). Li suggests the base having a first wall, a second wall, and a first interface extending between the first wall and the second wall (see annotated Figs. 5 and Fig. 8, where Fig. 5 shows how wall is interpreted for the base, and Fig. 8 shows the location of the walls and 1st interface), wherein the first interface forms a first notch (best seen in e.g., Figs. 7-8) and the cover having a first edge, a second edge, and a second interface extending between the first edge and the second edge (see annotated Figs. 5 and 8, where annotated Fig. 5 shows how edges are interpreted for the cover, and Fig. 8 shows the location of the edges and 2nd interface), wherein the second interface forms a second notch (best seen in Figs. 7-8); wherein the base and the cover are coupled to one another in an assembled configuration (e.g., seal 31, see Figs. 5 and 8) of the electronic enclosure to enclose an internal volume of the electronic enclosure, and the first notch and the second notch are configured to concentrate stress caused by pressure buildup in the internal volume, thereby facilitating relief of the pressure buildup from within the electronic enclosure at the first notch and the second notch. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, MPEP 2112.01. In this case, the structure suggested in the prior art and claims is the same, thus the claimed properties (i.e., “configured to concentrate stress…”) are presumed inherent.
Regarding Claim 17, Li suggests in the assembled configuration of the electronic enclosure, the first wall of the base and the first edge of the cover are in engagement with one another (e.g., via seal 31), and the second wall of the base and the second edge of the cover are in engagement with one another (e.g., via seal 31), see e.g., Figs. 5 and 8.
Regarding Claim 18, Li suggests the first wall and the second wall extend to opposite ends of the first notch (see 1st interface), and the first edge and the second edge extend to opposite ends of the second notch (see 2nd interface), see Fig. 8.
Regarding Claim 19, Li suggests the base comprises a third wall (e.g., along fold 11) extending from the first wall, the cover comprises a third edge (e.g., along fold 11) extending from the first edge, and the first notch and the second notch are configured to divert stress concentration away from the third wall and the third edge to the first interface and the second interface, respectively, during the pressure buildup in the internal volume. As with claim 16, I the structure suggested in the prior art and claims is the same, thus the claimed properties (i.e., configured to divert stress concentration away …”) are presumed inherent, see MPEP 2112.02.
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(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasma (cited above), in view of Kasuya (JP 2005071907), hereinafter Kasuya.
Regarding Claim 5, Pasma suggests a cover (402b, 502b, [0037]) configured to couple to the first wall and the second wall to seal (via seal 310, 410, etc.) the internal volume of the electronic enclosure. While the hermetic nature of the seal is not disclose, such a feature is understood to one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain air tightness and prevent moisture permeation into the battery housing, [0003, 0007, 0030]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the cover is configured to the walls via a hermetic seal with the expectation of air tightness, thereby preventing moisture permeation into the battery housing, as suggested by Kauya.
Regarding Claim 6, Applicant attempts to differentiate the claimed product by the process in which it was made, i.e., “weld”. Applicant is reminded 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 or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (see In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113. In this case, examiner interprets the weld as sealing connection between the cover and material forming the walls. Pasma suggests the first wall comprises a flange (e.g., 403a), and the cover (e.g., via 403b) is configured to couple to the flange via a sealing connection (i.e., seal 410, [0037]) of a hermetic nature (see Kasuya, and rejection of claim 5) to ensure airtightness and prevent moisture from entering the cell housing, as suggested by Kasuya ([0003, 0007, 0014, 0030]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (cited earlier) in view of Kasuya (JP 2005071907), hereinafter Kasuya.
Regarding Claim 15, Applicant attempts to differentiate the claimed product by the process in which it was made, i.e., “weld”. Applicant is reminded 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 or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (see In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113. In this case, examiner interprets the weld as sealing connection between the cover and base. Li suggests the cover is connected to the base to seal the battery but does not suggest the seal is hermetic. However, Kasuya suggests a hermetic seal (i.e., seal 410, [0037]) ensures airtightness and prevents moisture from entering the cell housing. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the sealing connection of Li is hermetic in nature with the expectation of ensuring airtightness, thereby preventing moisture from entering the cell, as suggested by Kasuya ([0003, 0007, 0014, 0030]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (cited earlier) in view of Lu et al. (US 2022/0123396), hereinafter Lu.
Regarding Claim 20, Li does not suggest the first wall and the second wall are oriented obliquely with respect to one another, the first edge and the second edge are oriented obliquely with respect to one another, or both. However, Lu suggests a battery includes a space (10, 120, etc.) formed by orienting the walls of the battery into a specific shape; the shape of the space is rectangular, rectangular like, trapezoid, circular, semicircle, etc., to accommodate an electronic component, thereby ensuring high packaging efficiency, see e.g., Figs. 1, 4 and [0051, 0054, 0065-0066, 0069, 0092-0093]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to orient the walls obliquely with respect to one another to accommodate an electronic component of the same shape, thereby enabling high packaging efficiency, as suggested by Lu.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729