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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/02/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to the applicant’s remarks filed 04/02/26.
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The examiner agrees, and the previous rejection is withdrawn.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 Lee, US20180304504A1 (newly cited).
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.
Lee teaches a battery pack (300) comprising battery cells (101)(102) wherein a potting resin (thermoplastic resin)[0019] is injected into a mold such that the potting resin acts as the pack case, and side surfaces of the potting resin are exposed (formed with a molding frame without any additional fixing members)[0017]. Further, Lee teaches that the potting resin acting as a pack case reduces size, processing time, and impacts on the batteries [0016]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the potting resin acting as a pack case as in Lee to remove at least some of the fixing members of O’Neil to reduce size, processing time, and physical impacts.
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, Lee 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 (formed with a molding frame which surrounds battery pack without any additional fixing members)[0017].
Conclusion
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
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights