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 .
Duplicate Claims Warning
Applicant is advised that should Claim 10 be found allowable, Claims 13 and 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “wherein the groove is disposed at an edge of the boundary beam, such that the groove has only one side wall, a closed chamber is disposed between the only one side wall of the groove and one side away from the edge of the boundary beam of the sealing strip, and the sealing strip extends to the edge of the boundary beam” (emphasis added). The Examiner notes that the phrasing of the claim separates “one side” from the object that it is intending to describe (i.e. “the sealing strip”), thereby creating confusion as to what side is referenced. In order to increase clarity, the Examiner suggests amending the claim wording as follows:
“wherein the groove is disposed at an edge of the boundary beam, such that the groove has only one side wall, a closed chamber is disposed between the only one side wall of the groove and one side of the sealing strip away from the edge of the boundary beam, and the sealing strip extends to the edge of the boundary beam” (emphasis added).
Claim 16 recites, “wherein a sealant is disposed between the boundary beam and the bottom plate, and the sealant is disposed in a side of the groove away from the accommodating space” (emphasis added). Based on the changes made to Claims 10, 13, 14, 18 and 19 and the instant specification [0060], this limitation should read, “disposed on a side of the groove”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poscharnig et al. (EP-3346518-A1; previously cited) in view of Tajima et al. (US-20230155232-A1; newly cited) and in further view of Hashimoto et al. (US-20130004822-A1; newly cited) and as evidenced by The Columbia Encyclopedia (previously cited; see NPL provided 09/26/2025 for citations).
Regarding Claim 1, Poscharnig discloses a battery case (housing 30; [0029]), comprising
a bottom plate (base plate 31, Fig. 2) and a boundary beam (housing frame 32, Fig. 5) connected to the bottom plate [0012, 0032], wherein
the boundary beam (housing frame 32) and the bottom plate (base plate 31) form an accommodating space (interior space of the housing; [0012, 0032]) for accommodating batteries [0001, 0009-0010, 0027-0029, 0035].
Poscharnig discloses that the embodiment depicted in Figs. 5-7 complies with the embodiment of Fig. 2 except for the addition of a circumferential bulge (63, Fig. 6) provided in the groove (recess 60) [0035]. Therefore, although Figs. 5-6 only depict the groove between the boundary beam (housing frame 32) and a cover plate (33), it is understood that the same groove is formed between the boundary beam (housing frame 32) and the bottom plate (base plate 31) [0030, 0032]. As such, it is understood that Poscharnig discloses that a groove (recess 60; [0030]) is disposed on a side surface of the boundary beam (base plate 31) facing the bottom plate (base plate 31) [0030, 0032, 0035].
Although Poscharnig does not explicitly teach in the embodiment shown in Figs. 5-7 [0035] that “the groove is disposed around the accommodating space”, Poscharnig discloses an alternative embodiment (Figs. 3-4; [0033-0034]), wherein the groove is disposed around the accommodating space (see Figs. 3-4; [0033-0034]), which the sealing of the accommodating space [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the groove such that it is disposed around the accommodating space with a reasonable expectation that such an arrangement would result in a successful groove, and would be capable of ensuring sealing of the accommodating space.
Poscharnig further discloses that:
a sealing strip (gasket 50) is disposed in the groove along an extending direction of the groove [0030, 0035],
the sealing strip (gasket 50) is in contact with a groove bottom of the groove and the bottom plate, respectively (see annotation of Poscharnig Fig. 5, below),
wherein the groove is disposed at an edge of the boundary beam, such that the groove has only one side wall (see annotation of Poscharnig Fig. 5, below),
a closed chamber is disposed between the only one side wall of the groove and one side of the sealing strip away from the edge of the boundary beam.
PNG
media_image1.png
1038
2020
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Poscharnig Fig. 5.
Poscharnig discloses that the arrangement of the gasket is not limited [0030], and that the illustrated embodiments are not meant to limit the invention [0022]. Therefore, although Poscharnig does not explicitly teach that the sealing strip extends to the edge of the boundary beam, such a configuration would have been obvious over the teachings of Tajima and Hashimoto.
Specifically, Tajima teaches that a sealing strip (sealing portion 240) can be positioned such that it extends to the edge of a member (see Figs. 8 and 22), and that such a configuration results in a successful seal between the member and another member [0047-0050, 0065-0067]. Similarly, Hashimoto teaches that a sealing strip (sealing member 20) can be positioned such that it extends to the edges of a groove (see Figs. 8-9), and that such a configuration results in a successful waterproof seal between the bottom surface of a battery assembly and a cooling plate [0078-0082].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have positioned the sealing strip such that it extends to the edge of the boundary beam, as taught by Tajima and Hashimoto, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would have resulted in a successful seal between the boundary beam and the bottom plate since, absent showings of criticality, a rearrangement of parts normally requires only ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, VI, C).
Poscharnig discloses that the sealing strip (gasket 50) may be formed of an elastic material such as polyolefin Ethylene-Propylene-Dien-Monomers (EPDM) [0031]. Although Poscharnig does not specifically teach that “the sealing strip has a first volume at a first temperature, the sealing strip has a second volume at a second temperature, the first temperature is less than the second temperature”, The Columbia Encyclopedia evidences that when heat is applied to a body, its volume increases. Therefore, it is understood that the sealing strip of Poscharnig inherently has a first volume at a first temperature and a second volume at a second temperature, wherein the first temperature is less than the second temperature. Furthermore, the instant specification evidences that when the sealing strip is made of organic materials, it may expand at increased temperature [instant specification: 0032]. The Examiner notes that EPDM is an organic material.
Although Poscharnig does not explicitly teach the expansion of the sealing strip, and therefore does not explicitly teach that “a half of a difference between the second volume and the first volume is less than a volume of the closed chamber” or “wherein a ratio of the half of the difference between the second volume and the first volume to the volume of the closed chamber is 1/4 to 2/3”, or “wherein the first temperature is 10 °C to 30 °C, and the second temperature is 40 °C to 70 °C”, the Examiner notes that these limitations depend on the volume of the sealing strip and the volume of the closed chamber.
Regarding the volume of the sealing strip and the volume of the closed chamber, Poscharnig discloses that a ratio of the width of the sealing strip (gasket 50) to the width of the groove (recess 60) is about 1:2 [0032]. Poscharnig discloses that if the ratio exceeds 1:3, the manufacturing cost for providing the recess may increase without having any further improvement with respect to sealing function [0016]. Alternatively, if the ratio is below 1:1.2, a disarrangement of the sealing strip and the groove may occur [0016].
Furthermore, Poscharnig discloses that a depth of the groove (recess 60) to the height of the gasket is in the range of 1:1.1 to 1:2 [0017]. Notably, Poscharnig contemplates such a ratio in view of the deformation of a sealing strip formed of an elastic material [0017]. If the ratio is below 1:1.1 the gasket might not sufficiently seal the housing, while if the ratio exceeds 1:2 a correct closure of the housing may be inhibited [0017].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the area (i.e. the height and width) of the groove in relation to the area (i.e. height and width) of the sealing strip, thereby inherently optimizing the volume of the closed chamber and the volume of the sealing strip, including selecting a volume of groove such that when “the first temperature is 10 °C to 30 °C, and the second temperature is 40 °C to 70 °C”, “a half of a difference between the second volume and the first volume is less than a volume of the closed chamber” and such that “wherein a ratio of the half of the difference between the second volume and the first volume to the volume of the closed chamber is 1/4 to 2/3”, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would have resulted in a successful balance between manufacturing cost and successful placement of the sealing strip within the groove (MPEP 2144.05, II).
The Examiner notes that the limitation “a half of a difference between the second volume and the first volume is less than a volume of the closed chamber” and the limitation “wherein a ratio of the half of the difference between the second volume and the first volume to the volume of the closed chamber is 1/4 to 2/3”, can be achieved through optimization of the volume of the closed chamber. For instance, if the sealing strip has a very small change in volume between a first temperature of 10 °C to 30 °C and a second temperature of 40 °C to 70 °C, and the groove also has a small volume, then the claimed relationship between the difference in the change of volume of the sealing strip and the volume of the groove can be achieved. Similarly, if the sealing strip has a very large change in volume between a first temperature of 10 °C to 30 °C and a second temperature of 40 °C to 70 °C, and the groove also has a large volume, then the claimed relationship between the difference in the change of volume of the sealing strip and the volume of the groove can also be achieved.
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to persuasively argue or show by means of evidence that a particular material of the sealing strip is necessary in order to achieve the claimed limitations, such a configuration would still have been obvious in view of the teachings of Poscharnig since Poscharnig contemplates sizing the groove in view of the deformation of the sealing member [0017].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the material of the sealing strip in view of the design considerations laid out above (e.g. such that the width of the sealing strip to the width of the groove remains within a ratio of 1:3 to 1:1.2 [0016], regardless of a change in temperature), including selecting a material which results in “a half of a difference between the second volume and the first volume is less than a volume of the closed chamber” and “wherein a ratio of the half of the difference between the second volume and the first volume to the volume of the closed chamber is 1/4 to 2/3” when “the first temperature is 10 °C to 30 °C, and the second temperature is 40 °C to 70 °C” with a reasonable expectation that such a material selection for the sealing strip would result in a successful sealing strip capable of being successfully accommodated within the groove.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Poscharnig renders obvious all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Poscharnig discloses that the closed chamber has a length in a first direction (see annotation of Poscharnig Fig. 6, below), wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the extending direction of the groove and parallel to a surface of the bottom plate.
PNG
media_image2.png
540
1209
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Poscharnig Fig. 6.
Although Poscharnig does not explicitly teach that “a length of the closed chamber in a first direction is greater than a half of magnitude of expansion of the sealing strip in the first direction”, the Examiner notes that this limitation depends on the width of the sealing strip in relation to the width of the groove, and the material of the sealing strip.
Regarding the width of the sealing strip and the width of the closed chamber, Poscharnig discloses that a ratio of the width of the sealing strip (gasket 50) to the width of the groove (recess 60) is about 1:2 [0032]. Poscharnig discloses that if the ratio exceeds 1:3, the manufacturing cost for providing the recess may increase without having any further improvement with respect to sealing function [0016]. Alternatively, if the ratio is below 1:1.2, a disarrangement of the sealing strip and the groove may occur [0016].
Regarding the material of the sealing strip, although Poscharnig does not teach the change in volume of the sealing strip, Poscharnig does contemplate sizing the groove in view of the deformation of the sealing member [0017].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the material of the sealing strip in view of the design considerations laid out above (e.g. such that the width of the sealing strip to the width of the groove remains within a ratio of 1:3 to 1:1.2 [0016], regardless of a change in temperature) and to have optimized the width of the groove in relation to the width of the sealing strip, thereby inherently optimizing the length of the closed chamber and the length of the sealing strip, including selecting a width of groove and a width of sealing member that results in “a length of the closed chamber in the first direction is greater than half of magnitude of expansion of the sealing strip in the first direction”, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would have resulted in a successful balance between manufacturing cost and successful placement of the sealing strip within the groove, even when the sealing strip undergoes deformation (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Poscharnig renders obvious all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Poscharnig further discloses a battery device (vehicle including a battery module; [0019; Claim 10]) comprising the battery case according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1, above), and a battery (battery cells 10) disposed in the battery case [0027-0029, 0035; Claim 1].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poscharnig et al. (EP-3346518-A1; previously cited) in view of Tajima et al. (US-20230155232-A1; newly cited) and in further view of Hashimoto et al. (US-20130004822-A1; newly cited) and as evidenced by The Columbia Encyclopedia (previously cited; see NPL provided 09/26/2025 for citations) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Nagamine (US-20150295215-A1; previously cited) and in further view of Günther et al. (US-20190273231-A1; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Poscharnig renders obvious all of the claim limitations as set forth above, including a closed chamber (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Poscharnig does not explicitly disclose that air is provided in the closed chamber.
Nagamine teaches that air can be successfully used as the medium inside a battery pack case (reads on battery case) [Abstract; 0035].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected air as the medium within the battery case of modified Poscharnig with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a successful battery case (MPEP 2144.07). Since Poscharnig discloses that the battery is assembled by interposing respective gaskets between the base plate / housing frame and cover plate / housing frame [0012], it is understood that the medium provided in the closed chamber is the same as the medium provided in the battery case. Therefore, modified Poscharnig renders obvious that air is provided in the closed chamber.
Poscharnig discloses that the battery case can be applied to a battery module for a vehicle [0019]. Poscharnig further discloses that the gasket arrangement ensures sufficient sealing of the housing against leakage of liquid (e.g. water) from the outside to the battery module interior [0012]. Poscharnig does not teach that humidity in the closed chamber is less than or equal to 50%.
Günther teaches that battery modules used in vehicles require specific housings [0002]. Günther teaches that the battery module must be housed in a battery housing sealed against the ingress of moisture to prevent the formation of condensate inside the battery housing [0002]. Moisture penetrating into the battery compartment of the battery housing can cause a short circuit, which can cause a first of the battery module [0002].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have reduced the content of moisture (i.e. humidity) within the battery housing to be as close to zero as possible, including selecting the humidity to be less than or equal to 50%, with a reasonable expectation that sealing the battery module against moisture and reducing the content of humidity within the battery housing would have a reasonable expectation of resulting in a successful battery module (MPEP 2144.05, I). By reducing the humidity within the battery housing, the humidity in the closed chamber is also reduced to less than or equal to 50%.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poscharnig et al. (EP-3346518-A1; previously cited) in view of Tajima et al. (US-20230155232-A1; newly cited) and in further view of Hashimoto et al. (US-20130004822-A1; newly cited) and as evidenced by The Columbia Encyclopedia (previously cited; see NPL provided 09/26/2025 for citations) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Hayama et al. (US-6225778-B1; previously cited).
Regarding Claims 8-9, modified Poscharnig renders obvious all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Poscharnig further discloses that the groove (recess) is a width of about 1/3 of the total width of the flange of the boundary beam (housing frame) [0029, 0032]. The width of the groove in relation to a total width of the flange is selected in view of securing mechanical integrity (i.e. preventing the groove from being so large as to deteriorate the mechanical integrity of the flange) while ensuring correct placement of the sealing strip (i.e. if the groove is too small, the sealing strip may be positioned incorrectly) [0015]. The width of the groove (recess) is also selected in view of the width of the sealing strip (gasket) in order to ensure improvement in sealing function while preventing disarrangement of the sealing strip [0016]. Poscharnig does not explicitly teach that the length of the closed chamber in the first direction is 2 mm to 4 mm as required by Claim 8, or that a cross-sectional area of the closed chamber in a direction perpendicular to the extending direction of the groove is 4 mm2 to 18 mm2 as required by Claim 9.
Hayama teaches a container housing a battery must be reduced in wall thickness in order to increase capacity, while taking into account that a limitation in a reduction of wall thickness exists from the viewpoint of ensuring sufficient strength of the container (Col. 2: lines 21-30). Hayama teaches that electronic devices require a reduction in size, thickness and weight as well as improved battery characteristics including a higher energy density (Col. 1: lines 9-15; Col. 2: lines 17-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken into consideration the width (i.e. thickness) of the flange of the boundary beam, the width of the groove, and the width of the sealing strip in order to achieve a balance between increasing capacity while ensuring mechanical strength, securing mechanical integrity while ensuring correcting positioning of the sealing strip, and ensuring improvement in sealing function while preventing disarrangement of the sealing strip, including selecting a total width of the flange of the boundary beam, a width of the groove, and a width of the sealing strip which results in a closed chamber with a length in the first direction is 2 mm to 4 mm as required by Claim 8, and which results in a cross-sectional area of the closed chamber in a direction perpendicular to the extending direction of the groove which is 4 mm2 to 18 mm2 as required by Claim 9. (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Claim(s) 10-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poscharnig et al. (EP-3346518-A1; previously cited) in view of Tajima et al. (US-20230155232-A1; newly cited) and in further view of Hashimoto et al. (US-20130004822-A1; newly cited) and as evidenced by The Columbia Encyclopedia (previously cited; see NPL provided 09/26/2025 for citations) as applied to Claims 1 and 7 above, and in view of You et al. (WO-2020133750-A1; previously cited; see English equivalent US-20210328304-A1 for citations).
Regarding Claims 10 and 13-14, modified Poscharnig renders obvious all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Poscharnig discloses that the boundary beam (housing frame 32) and the bottom plate (base plate 31) each have an extending “flange” portion (see annotation of Poscharnig Fig. 2, below), and that the height of the sealing strip (gasket) can be selected in view of achieving tight sealing of the interior space of the battery case [0032, 0035].
PNG
media_image3.png
596
1002
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Poscharnig Fig. 2.
Although Poscharnig contemplates the use of an adhesive between the sealing strip (gasket) and the bottom plate (base plate) [0031], Poscharnig does not teach that a sealant is disposed between the boundary beam and the bottom plate, on a side of the groove away from the accommodating space.
You teaches a battery pack including a box (reads on battery case) comprising a lower box and an upper box [0031]. The lower box includes a first edge portion and the upper box includes a second edge portion, and the first edge portion and the second edge portion are connected to each other “by such ways as rivet connection, bolt connection, buckle connection, or glue connection” [0031]. The first and second edge portions correspond to the flange portions of Poscharnig. Advantageously, the connection means taught by You results in sealing and fixing of the two members [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a glue connection between the flange portion of the bottom plate and the flange portion of the boundary beam (see annotation of Poscharnig Fig. 2, above) with a reasonable expectation that providing glue between the flange portions would result in a successful seal between the two members as taught by You (MPEP 2144.07). The glue connection corresponds to a sealant disposed between the boundary beam and the bottom plate, wherein the sealant is disposed on a side of the groove away from the accommodating space as required by Claims 10 and 13-14.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Poscharnig renders obvious all of the claim limitations as set forth above, including that the sealant (glue connection) is positioned between the flange portion of the bottom plate and the flange portion of the boundary beam (see rejection of Claim 10, above). The location of the sealant (glue connection) can be visualized in the annotation of Poscharnig Fig. 2, below. As seen in the annotation of Poscharnig Fig. 2, there is a distance between the sealant and the groove.
PNG
media_image4.png
502
604
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Poscharnig Fig. 2.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Poscharnig renders obvious all of the claim limitations as set forth above, including that the sealant (glue connection) is positioned between the flange portion of the bottom plate and the flange portion of the boundary beam (see rejection of Claim 10, above).
Although Poscharnig does not teach that the boundary beam and the bottom plate are connected by a fastener, You teaches that the edge portions of the lower box and the upper box can be connected to each other “by such ways as rivet connection, bolt connection, buckle connection, or glue connection” [0031], and that such a connection results in sealing and fixing [0034]. A rivet, bolt or buckle reads on the recited limitation of a fastener.
Therefore, although not disclosed in a single embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected both a glue connection and a rivet, bolt, or buckle connection to secure the flange portion of the bottom plate to the flange portion of the boundary beam, since each fastening means is individually known to be suitable for fixing two members (MPEP 2144.07), and since combining equivalents known for the same purpose supports a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.06). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that selecting a glue connection and a rivet connection, bolt connection, or buckle connection would result in a successful seal between the two members (MPEP 2144.06; MPEP 2144.07). Therefore, modified Poscharnig renders obvious that the boundary beam and the bottom plate are connected by a fastener. Since the fastener is positioned between the flange portion of the bottom plate and the flange portion of the boundary beam, the fastener is necessarily disposed on the side of the groove away from the accommodating space.
Although modified Poscharnig does not teach explicitly teach that sealant is disposed “at least between the fastener and the groove”, in seeking to maximize the sealing effect of the glue connection, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have maximized the area that the glue is provided between the flanges of the bottom plate and the boundary beam, including providing glue (i.e. sealant) between the fastener and the groove, with a reasonable expectation that disposing sealant between the fastener and the groove would result in a successful seal between the bottom plate and the boundary beam.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Poscharnig renders obvious all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Poscharnig discloses that the boundary beam (housing frame 32) and the bottom plate (base plate 31) each have an extending “flange” portion (see annotation of Poscharnig Fig. 2, below), and that the height of the sealing strip (gasket) can be selected in view of achieving tight sealing of the interior space of the battery case [0032, 0035].
PNG
media_image3.png
596
1002
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Poscharnig Fig. 2.
Although Poscharnig contemplates the use of an adhesive between the sealing strip (gasket) and the bottom plate (base plate) [0031], Poscharnig does not teach that a sealant is disposed between the boundary beam and the bottom plate, on a side of the groove away from the accommodating space.
You teaches a battery pack including a box (reads on battery case) comprising a lower box and an upper box [0031]. The lower box includes a first edge portion and the upper box includes a second edge portion, and the first edge portion and the second edge portion are connected to each other “by such ways as rivet connection, bolt connection, buckle connection, or glue connection” [0031]. The first and second edge portions correspond to the flange portions of Poscharnig. Advantageously, the connection means taught by You results in sealing and fixing of the two members [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a glue connection between the flange portion of the bottom plate and the flange portion of the boundary beam (see annotation of Poscharnig Fig. 2, above) with a reasonable expectation that providing glue between the flange portions would result in a successful seal between the two members as taught by You (MPEP 2144.07). The glue connection corresponds to a sealant disposed between the boundary beam and the bottom plate, wherein the sealant is disposed on a side of the groove away from the accommodating space.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poscharnig et al. (EP-3346518-A1; previously cited) in view of Tajima et al. (US-20230155232-A1; newly cited) and in view of Hashimoto et al. (US-20130004822-A1; newly cited) and as evidenced by The Columbia Encyclopedia (previously cited; see NPL provided 09/26/2025 for citations) and in view of Nagamine (US-20150295215-A1; previously cited) and in further view of Günther et al. (US-20190273231-A1; previously cited) as applied to Claim 5, above, and in further view of You et al. (WO-2020133750-A1; previously cited; see English equivalent US-20210328304-A1 for citations).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Poscharnig renders obvious all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Poscharnig discloses that the boundary beam (housing frame 32) and the bottom plate (base plate 31) each have an extending “flange” portion (see annotation of Poscharnig Fig. 2, below), and that the height of the sealing strip (gasket) can be selected in view of achieving tight sealing of the interior space of the battery case [0032, 0035].
PNG
media_image3.png
596
1002
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Poscharnig Fig. 2.
Although Poscharnig contemplates the use of an adhesive between the sealing strip (gasket) and the bottom plate (base plate) [0031], Poscharnig does not teach that a sealant is disposed between the boundary beam and the bottom plate, on a side of the groove away from the accommodating space.
You teaches a battery pack including a box (reads on battery case) comprising a lower box and an upper box [0031]. The lower box includes a first edge portion and the upper box includes a second edge portion, and the first edge portion and the second edge portion are connected to each other “by such ways as rivet connection, bolt connection, buckle connection, or glue connection” [0031]. The first and second edge portions correspond to the flange portions of Poscharnig. Advantageously, the connection means taught by You results in sealing and fixing of the two members [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a glue connection between the flange portion of the bottom plate and the flange portion of the boundary beam (see annotation of Poscharnig Fig. 2, above) with a reasonable expectation that providing glue between the flange portions would result in a successful seal between the two members as taught by You (MPEP 2144.07). The glue connection corresponds to a sealant disposed between the boundary beam and the bottom plate, wherein the sealant is disposed on (see Claim Objection, above) a side of the groove away from the accommodating space.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poscharnig et al. (EP-3346518-A1; previously cited) in view of Tajima et al. (US-20230155232-A1; newly cited) and in further view of Hashimoto et al. (US-20130004822-A1; newly cited) and as evidenced by The Columbia Encyclopedia (previously cited; see NPL provided 09/26/2025 for citations) and in view of Hayama et al. (US-6225778-B1; previously cited) as applied to Claim 9, above, and in further view of You et al. (WO-2020133750-A1; previously cited; see English equivalent US-20210328304-A1 for citations).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Poscharnig renders obvious all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Poscharnig discloses that the boundary beam (housing frame 32) and the bottom plate (base plate 31) each have an extending “flange” portion (see annotation of Poscharnig Fig. 2, below), and that the height of the sealing strip (gasket) can be selected in view of achieving tight sealing of the interior space of the battery case [0032, 0035].
PNG
media_image3.png
596
1002
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Poscharnig Fig. 2.
Although Poscharnig contemplates the use of an adhesive between the sealing strip (gasket) and the bottom plate (base plate) [0031], Poscharnig does not teach that a sealant is disposed between the boundary beam and the bottom plate, on a side of the groove away from the accommodating space.
You teaches a battery pack including a box (reads on battery case) comprising a lower box and an upper box [0031]. The lower box includes a first edge portion and the upper box includes a second edge portion, and the first edge portion and the second edge portion are connected to each other “by such ways as rivet connection, bolt connection, buckle connection, or glue connection” [0031]. The first and second edge portions correspond to the flange portions of Poscharnig. Advantageously, the connection means taught by You results in sealing and fixing of the two members [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a glue connection between the flange portion of the bottom plate and the flange portion of the boundary beam (see annotation of Poscharnig Fig. 2, above) with a reasonable expectation that providing glue between the flange portions would result in a successful seal between the two members as taught by You (MPEP 2144.07). The glue connection corresponds to a sealant disposed between the boundary beam and the bottom plate, wherein the sealant is disposed on a side of the groove away from the accommodating space.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant has argued that the gasket of Poscharnig does not extend to an edge of the housing frame 32 (Remarks, Pg. 9). In response, the Examiner notes that this limitation is rendered obvious over newly cited Tajima and Hashimoto (see rejection of Claim 1, above).
Applicant has further argued that Table 1 and paragraphs [0095-0099] prove that the ratio range from 1/4 to 2/3 is a key parameter (critical range) which produces a better sealing effect, rather than an arbitrary choice (Remarks, Pg. 10).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. Although the Examiner acknowledges that a change in leakage is exhibited between Embodiment 7 (wherein the ratio is 0.25) and Embodiment 8 (wherein the ratio is 0.24), it is unclear exactly what differences contribute to this change. For instance, it is unclear whether the same material is used for the sealing strip in Embodiments 7 and 8, or whether they were subjected to the same temperatures. Furthermore, Embodiments 2 and 10 use the same ratio (0.5), and achieve different leakages (8.1 P/KPa and 7.4 P/KPa, respectively), indicating that either the ratio is not the only critical factor in achieving a small leakage, or that the standard deviation of the testing conditions is rather large, thereby casting doubt on the criticality of the claimed range of 0.25 to 0.67.
Additionally, in regards to the upper limit of the claimed range, although the Examiner acknowledges that a ratio of 0.67 provided a smaller leakage (13.2 P/KPa) as compared to a ratio of 0.80 (18.5 P/KPa) and 0.81 (17.6 P/KPa), it is unclear whether a ratio slightly larger than 0.67 (e.g. 0.7) would exhibit unexpectedly worse results than the results demonstrated with a ratio of 0.67, especially since the data provided in Table 1 does not appear to demonstrate a clear trend.
Additionally, as noted previously, it is unclear exactly what conditions were used to achieve the results summarized in Table 1 (e.g. temperatures used, materials used for the sealing strip). Accordingly, it is not clear whether the scope of the independent claim is commensurate with the showing of evidence. Absent discussion or evidence to the contrary, it appears that the material of the sealing strip and the temperatures of the first temperature and the second temperature are critical to achieving the (allegedly) unexpected results.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751