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 Arguments
The following is in response to the applicant’s remarks filed 6/26/26.
The applicant submits that the amendments overcome the previous rejection.
The examiner agrees, and the previous rejection is withdrawn. A new basis for rejection appears below as necessitated by amendment.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 4 and 16 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by O’Neil, US20230399483A1, and Pampel, US20230223648A1.
Regarding claim 1, O’Neil teaches a battery pack [0002], comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (103); and a pack case (102) in which the plurality of battery cells are accommodated, wherein the pack case includes a potting resin (104) covering all sides of the plurality of battery cells [fig. 3],
the potting resin being filled to a predetermined height between the plurality of battery cells (partially covering)[0025][fig. 3 – 4]
the pack case is integrally formed with the potting resin (integrally formed)[0040]
the potting resin fills a lateral gap between adjacent battery cells (gaps between cells (103) filled with insulating material (104))[0002][0040][fig. 3]
the lateral gap extends from one of the adjacent battery cells to another of the adjacent battery cells (gaps between cells)[fig. 3]; and
the plurality of battery cells comprises the adjacent battery cells (cells (103))[fig. 3]
O’Neil does not teach the potting resin acts as the pack case, and side surfaces of the potting resin are exposed. the potting resin is a single continuous cured resin body that fills the lateral gap between the adjacent battery cells and forms exposed lateral outer side surfaces of the battery pack, such that no interface is present between a resin portion filling the lateral gap and a resin portion forming the exposed lateral outer side surfaces.
Pampel teaches a battery pack (1) comprising a plurality of battery cells (2) and a pack case (5) [fig. 5][fig. 7] wherein the pack case includes a potting resin (expanding or foaming plastic) the potting resin acts as the pack case [0002], and side surfaces of the potting resin are exposed and the potting resin is a single continuous cured resin body that fills the lateral gap between the adjacent battery cells and forms exposed lateral outer side surfaces of the battery pack, such that no interface is present between a resin portion filling the lateral gap and a resin portion forming the exposed lateral outer side surfaces (plastic housing is formed onto cells and then cured)[0020][fig. 5]. Further, Pampel teaches that the potting resin formed as the exposed surfaces of the battery case increases safety and weight reduction [0016][0017]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the potting resin of Pampel into the battery module of O’Neil to increase safety and reduce weight.
Regarding claim 2, combined O’Neil teaches the battery pack according to claim 1.
Further, O’Neil teaches wherein the plurality of battery cells are in the potting resin with upper and lower ends of the battery cells being exposed at least in part (partially covering)[0025](exposed ends)[fig.3]
Regarding claim 3, combined O’Neil teaches the battery pack according to claim 1.
Further, O’Neil teaches wherein an upper surface of the potting resin is lower than an upper end of the plurality of battery cells in a height wise direction of the plurality of battery cells, and wherein a lower surface of the potting resin is than a lower end of the plurality of battery cells in the height wise direction of the plurality of battery cells (partially covering)[0025](exposed ends)[fig.3].
Regarding claim 4, combined O’Neil teaches the battery pack according to claim 1.
Further, O’Neil teaches wherein the potting resin includes silicone resin (silicone)[0029]
Regarding claim 16, combined O’Neil teaches the battery pack according to claim 1.
Further, O’Neil teaches wherein: the potting resin forms a continuous outer surface of the pack case that laterally encloses all of the plurality of battery cells; and the continuous outer surface of the pack case lies outside of an outermost boundary of all of the plurality of battery cells (insulating material (104) fills space between cells (103) and case (102) in a continuous manner)[0025][fig. 3]
Regarding claim 17, combined O’Neil teaches the battery pack according to claim 1.
Further, Pampel teaches wherein the side surfaces of the potting resin form outer side surfaces of the battery pack, and the side surfaces of the potting resin are exposed to an outside of the battery pack [fig. 5][0020].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
