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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the through-slit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although “a through-slit” is recited in claim 3, “a through-slit” of claim 3 is located on the side frame. Therefore, it cannot be on the mounting frame.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 10-2019-0078936 A, hereinafter Kim, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 1. Kim teaches a battery case (Fig. 1) comprising:
a case body (item 100) accommodating a battery cell; and
a cover (P2) coupled to the case body,
wherein the case body includes:
a bottom plate (item 110);
a side frame (item 170) coupled to the bottom plate to surround the battery cell, and including an inner side wall and an outer side wall;
a mounting frame (item 190) coupled to the outer side wall of the side frame and having a space (Fig. 2); and
at least one reinforcement material (item 300) disposed on the bottom plate and having both end portions in a longitudinal direction passing at least through the inner side wall of the side frame (Fig. 2),
wherein the side frame is formed to have at least three closed sections (Fig. 2),
the space of the mounting frame is located to correspond to one of the closed sections of the side frame (Fig. 2), and
an end portion of the reinforcement material is inserted into one of the closed sections of the side frame (Fig. 1 & 2).
Re Claim 2. Kim teaches wherein the reinforcement material comprises: a body (Fig. 5, middle portion of item 300) passing through the inner side wall of the side frame; and a support portion (flange portion of item 300) extending in a width direction of the body from an end portion of the body and contacting the inner side wall of the side frame.
Re Claim 3. Kim teaches wherein a through-slit (Fig. 1, item 175) is formed in the inner side wall or the outer side wall of the side frame, and the end portion of the body is inserted into and shape- fitted to the through-slit of the side frame.
Re Claim 7. Kim teaches wherein, in the side frame, four or more transverse members are integrally formed with at least three closed sections (Fig. 2) by bending a single plate material (product-by-process limitation), and the mounting frame is formed to have the space (Fig. 2) by bending a single plate material (product-by-process limitation).
[E]ven 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. See MPEP 2113.
Re Claim 8. Kim teaches wherein a transverse member of the side frame defining one of the at least three closed sections and a transverse portion of the mounting frame defining the space of the mounting frame have the same height as each other in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 2).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 3 and 1 above, respectively, and further in view of Namiri et al. (JP02891077 B, hereinafter Namiri, cited by applicant).
The teachings of Kim have been discussed above.
Re Claim 4. Kim fails to specifically teach that a welded portion is formed on a coupled site between the reinforcement material and the through-slit of the side frame.
The invention of Namiri encompasses joining structure of members. Namiri teaches that a welded portion (Fig. 1-3) is formed on a coupled site between the reinforcement material (item 15) and the through-slit (item 11B) of the side frame.
In view of Namiri, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Kim to form a welded portion on a coupled site between the reinforcement material and the through-slit of the side frame, since it would strengthen a connection between the reinforcement material and the side frame.
Re Claim 6. Kim fails to specifically teach that a thickness of the reinforcement material is thicker than a thickness of the side frame, and is thinner than a thickness of the mounting frame.
Namiri discloses that the mounting strength can be increased by increasing the thickness of the reinforcement material (P4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Kim to find the optimum thickness of the reinforcement material in comparison to the thickness of the side frame and the mounting frame, by routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 211335559 U, hereinafter Zhang, cited by applicant).
Kim fails to specifically teach that a longitudinal member of the side frame defining one of the at least three closed sections overlaps a longitudinal member constituting the inner side wall or the outer side wall of the side frame.
The invention of Zhang encompasses frame structure for vehicle battery pack. Zhang teaches a longitudinal member of the side frame defining one of the closed sections overlaps a longitudinal member constituting the inner side wall of the side frame (Fig. 5 & 10).
In view of Zhang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Kim to have a longitudinal member of the side frame defining one of the at least three closed sections overlaps a longitudinal member constituting the inner side wall of the side frame, to increase the strength of the side frame.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the through-slit is formed in the mounting frame, the end portion of the body passes through and protrudes from the mounting frame, a welded portion is formed on a coupled site between the body and the through-slit of the mounting frame.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
12/4/2025