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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 Jun 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-16 under 35 USC § 103 as unpatentable over Koshiol et al. (US 2020/0083492) in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0049623), Applicant argues that the newly-amended claims 1 and 9 now recite the feature of “a respective cover is arranged with respect to the base body to protrude at least partially with respect to the first direction into an interior of the base body and a tapering inner geometry of the base body ensures that the respective cover comes into contact,” which, in Applicant’s view, is not taught by the prior art of Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al..
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and submits that this feature is taught by Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al., as set forth in detail in the rejections of claims 1 and 9 below.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Applicant argues that the newly amended feature “that allows a wedge-shaped depression to be provided frontally” is not taught by the prior art of Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al..
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and submits that this feature is taught by Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al., as set forth in detail in the rejections of claims 3 and 11 below.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim language recites “A housing component for a prismatic cell housing of a battery cell, comprising: a base body formed as a hollow profile; and two covers that are welded on opposite sides of the base body” and “the housing component is provided as a first housing component welded onto at least one second housing component of the cell housing.”
This renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear if the claimed first housing component and the claimed base body are two distinct components or if they correspond to the same component, given as element 14 in the Instant Specification (see Fig. 1). For clarity, it is suggested that the claim use either the term “first housing” or “base body” to describe this component, but not both terms.
Additionally, it is unclear if the claimed second housing component and the claimed two covers are two distinct components or if they correspond to the same component given as element 16 in the Instant Specification (see Fig. 1). For clarity, it is suggested that the claim use either the term “second housing component” or “two covers” to describe this component, but not both terms.
Claims 27 and 9-20 are similarly rejected as they incorporate all of the limitations of claim 1.
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) 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshiol et al. (US 2020/0083492) in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0049623).
As to claim 1, Koshiol et al. discloses a housing component for a prismatic cell housing of a battery cell, comprising:
a base body formed as a hollow profile (see e.g. housing 312, which has a hollow profile, Koshiol et al.: [0058] and Figs. 3-4); and
two covers that are welded on opposite sides of the base body with respect to a first direction, (see e.g. top cover 320 and bottom cover 330, which are welded to housing 312, along a vertical direction that reads on a first direction, Koshiol et al.: [0058], [0067], and Fig. 3) wherein
there is exactly one cell terminal per cover of the two covers (see e.g. Koshiol et al.: [0058] and Fig. 3, showing two terminals, 360 and 370, such that there is exactly one terminal per cover for the two covers 320 and 330),
a respective cover is arranged with respect to the base body to protrude at least partially with respect to the first direction into an interior of the base body (see e.g. Koshiol et al.: Fig. 7, top cover 320 and bottom cover 330 both protrude partially into the interior of housing 312, which reads on a base body)
the housing component is provided as a first housing component (see e.g. housing 312, which reads on a first housing component, Koshiol et al.: Fig. 3) welded onto at least one second housing component of the cell housing (see e.g. top cover 320, which reads on a second housing component, as per pg. 9, lines 7-8 of the Instant Specification, which states that the second housing component is one of the covers. First housing component 312 is welded on to 320 as per Koshiol et al.: [0067]),
the first housing component has an edge area arranged on the second housing component (see e.g. Koshiol et al.: Fig. 7, showing that housing 312 has an edge area on which 320 is arranged that reads on the claimed edge area).
PNG
media_image1.png
258
435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Illustration 1, reproduction with modification of Fig. 7 of Koshiol et al., highlighting the edge area.
Koshiol et al. teaches that the two covers are welded to the base body (see e.g. Koshiol et al.: [0067], stating that top and bottom covers 320 and 330 are welded to housing 312), and the interface between the covers and the base body runs in an area of an end face of the base body (i.e., on the top and bottom faces of housing 312, see e.g. Koshiol et al. :Figs. 3 and 7), and is formed completely circumferential with respect to a center axis that is arranged centrally with respect to dimensions of the two covers and the base body (see e.g. Koshiol et al.: Figs. 3-4 and 7, the interface between 312 and 320/330 is circular about a central axis, and can thereby be said to be formed completely circumferential with respect to a center axis that is arranged centrally with respect to dimensions of the two covers and the base body). Because a weld seam is by definition the interface between two welded materials and because Koshiol et al. teaches that housing 312 is welded to covers 320/330 (see e.g. Koshiol et al.: [0067]), Koshiol et al. therefore teaches a weld seam connects the two covers to the base body, runs in an area of an end face of the base body, and is formed completely circumferential with respect to a center axis that is arranged centrally with respect to dimensions of the two covers and the base body.
Further regarding claim 1, Koshiol et al. as applied above discloses an edge area that has a constant cross-sectional geometry (see Illustration 1 above), and does not disclose an edge area that has a cross-sectional geometry that varies in the first direction with respect to a cross section through the edge area that is parallel to the first direction.
Lee et al., also working in the field of battery design, teaches an analogous housing component for a battery cell in which a cover (see e.g. cap plate 130, Lee et al.: [0038], Fig. 3) is welded onto a base body (see e.g. can 120, Lee et al.: [0038] and Fig. 3, Lee et al.: [0049] teaches that 130 is welded to 120). Lee et al.’s base body has an edge area where the cover meets the base body that has a cross-sectional geometry that varies in the first direction with respect to a cross section through the edge area that is parallel to the first direction (see e.g. Lee et al.: Figs. 3 and 5 and Illustration 2 below, the cross-sectional geometry of the edge area has a chamfered shape such that it varies in the x-direction with respect to a cross section through the edge area that is parallel to the first direction).
PNG
media_image2.png
365
371
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Illustration 2, reproduction with modification of Fig. 3 of Lee et al., highlighting the edge area.
Lee et al. teaches that this chamfered cross-sectional geometry of the base body minimizes the amount of stress applied to the cover and increases the sealing force of the cover (see e.g. Lee et al.: [0051]-[0052] and [0057]-[0059]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing component of Koshiol et al. by designing the base body to have an edge area that has a cross-sectional geometry that varies in the first direction with respect to a cross section through the edge area that is parallel to the first direction in the manner taught by Lee et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to minimize the amount of stress applied to the cover and increase the sealing force of the cover, as taught by Lee et al..
Further regarding claim 1, Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. as applied above teaches a housing component comprising a base body (see e.g. can 120, Lee et al.: [0038] and Fig. 3) such that a tapering inner geometry of the base body ensures that the respective cover comes into contact (see e.g. Lee et al.: Fig. 3 and Illustration 2 above, showing a beveled edge area that reads on a tapering inner geometry of the base body. Cap plate 130, which reads on a respective cover, is in contact with can 120, which reads on a base body, as shown in Fig. 3 of Lee et al.).
As to claim 3, Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches the housing component of claim 1, wherein the edge area (see e.g. Illustration 3 above) has a first section with respect to the first direction, the first section comprises the edge, the first section has a beveled edge facing toward the interior, in an edge beveled according to a first angle of inclination with respect to the first direction (see e.g. Lee et al.: Fig. 3 and Illustration 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
224
503
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
224
503
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Illustration 4: Reproduction with modification of Fig. 3 of Lee et al..
Further regarding claim 3, the beveled edge of Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. (see Illustration 4 above) allows a wedge-shaped depression to be provided frontally. That is, the beveled interior surface of the housing of Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. reads on a wedge-shaped depression, and allows a wedge-shaped cover (see e.g. cap plate 130, Lee et al.: Fig. 3) to be inserted in the wedge-shaped depression in the top or front of the housing.
As to claim 5, Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches the housing component of claim 1, wherein the edge area (see e.g. Lee et al.: Fig. 3 and Illustrations 3-5 above) adjoins a central area of the base body with respect to the first direction, which has a greater wall thickness perpendicular to the first direction than the edge area (see e.g. Lee et al.: Fig. 3 and Illustration 6 below, showing that the central area of Lee et al.’s housing component has a greater wall thickness in a lateral direction that is perpendicular to the height direction).
PNG
media_image5.png
335
424
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Illustration 6: Reproduction with modification of Fig. 3 of Lee et al..
As to claim 7, Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches the housing component of claim 1, wherein the first housing (see e.g. Koshiol et al.: housing 312, Fig. 3) has a thickness in the first direction, a width in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and a height in a third direction perpendicular to the first and second direction (see e.g. Koshiol et al.: Fig. 3, housing 312 has a length along the height axis and a width and height along perpendicular axes), the edge area delimits each cover in the second and/or third direction (see e.g. Koshiol et al.: Figs. 3-4 and Illustration 1 above, the edge areas on opposite sides of 312 delimit the area of top and bottom covers 330/320), and is formed such that an outer diameter of each cover, which defines an outer dimension of each cover in the second and/or the third direction (see e.g. Lee et al.: Fig. 3, the outer dimensions of cover 130 along the x and y axes are defined by the edge area of 120), varies in the first direction (see e.g. Lee et al.: Fig. 3 and Illustration 3 showing the outer dimension of cover 130 decreasing along the vertical axis), and the outer diameter increases at least in areas, starting from a terminal side of each cover on which a pole terminal is arranged (i.e., the bottom of 130 as shown in Fig. 3, on which tab 114 is arranged reads on the terminal side of 130), in the direction of an inner side of each cover, which is opposite to the terminal side with respect to the first direction (see e.g. Lee et al.: Fig. 3 and Illustration 3, the outer diameter of cover 130 in the x direction increases from the bottom to the top of the cover).
As to claim 9, Koshiol et al. discloses a method for producing at least part of a prismatic cell housing for a battery cell (see e.g. battery 300, Fig. 1), which comprises a base body formed as a hollow profile (see e.g. housing 312, which has a hollow profile as shown in Fig. 4) and two covers (see e.g. top cover 320 and bottom cover 330, Fig. 7), which are welded to opposite sides of the base body with respect to a first direction (see e.g. Fig. 7, showing top and bottom covers 320/330 on opposite sides of housing 312 with respect to a first direction. [0067] states that the covers are welded to the housing),
the method comprising: providing a first housing component see e.g. housing 312, which reads on a first housing component, Fig. 3) welded on at least one second housing component of the cell housing (see e.g. top cover 320, which reads on a second housing component, Fig. 3. 312 is welded on to 320 as per [0067]), wherein there is exactly one cell terminal per cover of the two covers (see e.g. [0058] and Fig. 3, showing two terminals, 360 and 370, such that there is exactly one terminal per cover for the two covers 320 and 330),
a respective cover is arranged with respect to the base body to protrude at least partially with respect to the first direction into an interior of the base body (see e.g. Koshiol et al.: Fig. 7, top cover 320 and bottom cover 330 both protrude partially into the interior of housing 312, which reads on a base body),
the first housing component has an edge area to be arranged on the second housing component (see e.g. Fig. 7, showing that housing 312 has an edge area on which 320 is arranged that reads on the claimed edge area. See also Illustration 1 above).
Koshiol et al. does not explicitly disclose a weld seam connects the two covers to the base body, runs in an area of an end face of the base body, and is formed completely circumferential with respect to a center axis that is arranged centrally with respect to dimensions of the two covers and the base body. Additionally, Koshiol et al. does not disclose that the edge area has a cross-sectional geometry that varies in the first direction with respect to a cross section through the edge area that is parallel to the first direction.
However, Koshiol et al. teaches that the two covers are welded to the base body (see e.g. [0067], stating that top and bottom covers 320 and 330 are welded to housing 312), and the interface between the covers and the base body runs in an area of an end face of the base body (i.e., on the top and bottom faces of housing 312, see e.g. Figs. 3 and 7), and is formed completely circumferential with respect to a center axis that is arranged centrally with respect to dimensions of the two covers and the base body (see e.g. Figs. 3-4 and 7, the interface between 312 and 320/330 is circular about a central axis, and can thereby be said to be formed completely circumferential with respect to a center axis that is arranged centrally with respect to dimensions of the two covers and the base body). Because a weld seam is by definition the interface between two welded materials and because Koshiol et al. teaches that housing 312 is welded to covers 320/330 (see e.g. [0067]), one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the instantly-claimed invention would have reasonably expected that the housing component of Koshiol et al. would have a weld seam connects the two covers to the base body, runs in an area of an end face of the base body, and is formed completely circumferential with respect to a center axis that is arranged centrally with respect to dimensions of the two covers and the base body.
Further regarding claim 9, Koshiol et al. as applied above discloses an edge area that has a constant cross-sectional geometry (see Illustration 1 above), and does not disclose an edge area that has a cross-sectional geometry that varies in the first direction with respect to a cross section through the edge area that is parallel to the first direction.
Lee et al., also working in the field of battery design, teaches an analogous housing component for a battery cell in which a cover (see e.g. cap plate 130, [0038], Fig. 3) is welded onto a base body (see e.g. can 120, Lee et al.: [0038] and Fig. 3, Lee et al.: [0049] teaches that 130 is welded to 120). Lee et al.’s base body has an edge area where the cover meets the base body that has a cross-sectional geometry that varies in the first direction with respect to a cross section through the edge area that is parallel to the first direction (see e.g. Lee et al.: Figs. 3 and 5 and Illustration 2 above, the cross-sectional geometry of the edge area has a chamfered shape such that it varies in the x-direction with respect to a cross section through the edge area that is parallel to the first direction).
Lee et al. teaches that this chamfered cross-sectional geometry of the base body minimizes the amount of stress applied to the cover and increases the sealing force of the cover (see e.g. Lee et al.: [0051]-[0052] and [0057]-[0059]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing component of Koshiol et al. by designing the base body to have an edge area that has a cross-sectional geometry that varies in the first direction with respect to a cross section through the edge area that is parallel to the first direction in the manner taught by Lee et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to minimize the amount of stress applied to the cover and increase the sealing force of the cover, as taught by Lee et al..
Further regarding claim 9, Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. as applied above teaches a housing component comprising a base body (see e.g. can 120, Lee et al.: [0038] and Fig. 3) such that a tapering inner geometry of the base body ensures that the respective cover comes into contact (see e.g. Lee et al.: Fig. 3 and Illustration 2 above, showing a beveled edge area that reads on a tapering inner geometry of the base body. Cap plate 130, which reads on a respective cover, is in contact with can 120, which reads on a base body, as shown in Fig. 3 of Lee et al.).
As to claim 15, Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches the housing component of claim 3, wherein the edge area (see e.g. Illustration 3) adjoins a central area of the base body with respect to the first direction (see e.g. Illustration 3 and Lee et al.: Fig. 3, the edge area is attached to the base body 120 and can thereby be reasonably said to be adjoined to a central area of the base body with respect to the first direction), which has a greater wall thickness perpendicular to the first direction than the edge area (see e.g. Lee et al.: Fig. 3 and Illustration 3, the wall thickness of the base body along the lateral direction is greater than the thickness of the base body at the edge area).
As to claim 16, Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches the housing component of claim 4, wherein the edge area (see e.g. Illustration 3) adjoins a central area of the base body with respect to the first direction (see e.g. Illustration 3 and Lee et al.: Fig. 3, the edge area is attached to the base body 120 and can thereby be reasonably said to be adjoined to a central area of the base body with respect to the first direction), which has a greater wall thickness perpendicular to the first direction than the edge area (see e.g. Lee et al.: Fig. 3 and Illustration 3, the wall thickness of the base body along the lateral direction is greater than the thickness of the base body at the edge area).
Claim(s) 2, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshiol et al. (US 2020/0083492) in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0049623) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oide et al. (US 2019/0081288).
As to claim 2, Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches the housing component of claim 1, wherein the first housing component (see e.g. Koshiol et al.: housing 312, Fig. 3) has a length in the first direction, a width in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and a height in a third direction perpendicular to the first and second direction (see e.g. Koshiol et al.: Fig. 3, housing 312 has a length along the height axis and a width and height along perpendicular axes),
the base body encloses an interior (see e.g. Koshiol et al.: Fig. 4, showing housing 312 having a hollow interior),
the edge area comprises an edge delimiting the base body in the first direction and providing an end face of the base body (see e.g. the end face of 312 shown in Koshiol et al.: Fig. 4 reads on an edge area, see also Illustration 1 above),
the edge area is formed such that an inner diameter of the base body, which defines an inner dimension of the base body in the second and/or the third direction, decreases in the edge area with increasing distance from the edge (see e.g. Lee et al.: Fig. 3 and Illustration 3 below. The chamfered edge area defined by the housing decreases in inner diameter with increasing distance from the edge). However, Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al.’s structure has a linear tapering rather than a non-linear tapering (see Lee et al.: Fig. 3 and Illustration 3 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
253
963
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Illustration 3: Reproduction with modification of Fig. 3 of Lee et al..
Oide et al., also working on the problem of housing structures for batteries, teaches an analogous housing component comprising a base body and a cover (see e.g. case body 13, and lid 14, Oide et al.: [0047]-[0048] and Fig. 1). Oide et al. teaches that when a cover is inserted into a case body, there is the potential for part of the cover to be scraped by an edge of the case body (see e.g. Oide et al.: [0006]). To prevent this, Oide et al. teaches the use of chamfered corners that have rounded edges to prevent either the case body or the cover from being scraped (see e.g. Oide et al.: [0008]-[0009], and Figs. 5-6).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery housing of Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. to give the edge area a rounded corner in the manner taught by Oide et al. such that the tapering is non-linear instead of linear. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to prevent the sharp corners of the edge area from scraping against the cover, as taught by Oide et al.
As to claim 11, Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. and Oide et al. teaches the housing component of claim 2, wherein the edge area (see e.g. Illustration 3 above) has a first section with respect to the first direction, the first section comprises the edge, the first section has a beveled edge facing toward the interior, in an edge beveled according to a first angle of inclination with respect to the first direction (see e.g. Lee et al.: Fig. 3 and Illustration 4 above).
Further regarding claim 11, the beveled edge of Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. in view of Oide et al. (see Illustration 4 above) allows a wedge-shaped depression to be provided frontally. That is, the beveled interior surface of the housing of Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. and Oide et al. reads on a wedge-shaped depression, and allows a wedge-shaped cover (see e.g. cap plate 130, Lee et al.: Fig. 3) to be inserted in the wedge-shaped depression in the top or front of the housing.
As to claim 14, Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. and Oide et al. teaches the housing component of claim 2, wherein the edge area (see e.g. Illustration 3) adjoins a central area of the base body with respect to the first direction (see e.g. Illustration 3 and Lee et al.: Fig. 3, the edge area is attached to the base body 120 and can thereby be reasonably said to be adjoined to a central area of the base body with respect to the first direction), which has a greater wall thickness perpendicular to the first direction than the edge area (see e.g. Lee et al.: Fig. 3 and Illustration 3, the wall thickness of the base body along the lateral direction is greater than the thickness of the base body at the edge area).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshiol et al. (US 2020/0083492) in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0049623) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 2023/0231234).
As to claim 6, Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches the housing component of claim 1, wherein the base body has two opposite sides with respect to the third direction (see e.g. Koshiol et al., Fig. 3, housing 312 has opposing lateral sides that read on the two opposite sides), one of which can be defined as a lower side and the other as an upper side.
Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. does not teach that a degassing opening is arranged in the lower side, in the center with respect to the first and second direction.
Hwang et al., also working in the field of battery housing design, teaches a battery case (see e.g. case 110, Hwang et al.: Fig. 1) in which said battery case has a degassing opening disposed in the center of a side of the case that can reasonably be described as the lower side (see e.g. venting portion 130, which covers an opening in case 110, Hwang et al.: [0043]-[0044] and Fig. 1). Hwang et al. teaches that the battery can generate gas during operation, which can lead to a pressure increase and potentially an explosion of the battery (see e.g. Hwang et al.: [0007]-[0008]). Further, Hwang et al. teaches that a degassing opening improves the safety of the battery by allowing gas to be discharged to the outside (see e.g. Hwang et al.: [0007]-[0008]). While Hwang et al.’s battery has a pouch-style case rather than the can-style case of Lee et al., the problem of a pressure buildup would apply to both types of battery cases.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing component of Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. by adding the degassing opening taught by Hwang et al. to the lower side of Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al.’s base body such that the degassing opening is in the center with respect to the first and second direction. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al.’s battery housing in this way in order to allow excess pressure to be discharged and thereby improve the safety of the battery, as taught by Hwang et al..
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshiol et al. (US 2020/0083492) in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0049623) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Jennrich et al. (US 2018/0301771).
As to claim 10, Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches the method of claim 9, but does not teach a method in which the base body is provided by means of an extrusion method.
Jennrich et al., also working in the field of battery housing design, teaches that a metal base body for a battery cell (see e.g. battery system housing, Jennrich et al.: [0020]) can be provided via an extrusion method.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to use an extrusion method to provide the base body in Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al.’s method, because extrusion is an art-recognized method for providing a metal base body for a battery cell, as taught by Jennrich et al., and the use of an extrusion method would fail to produce any new or unexpected benefit that would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshiol et al. (US 2020/0083492) in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0049623) and Oide et al. (US 2019/0081288).as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 2023/0231234).
As to claim 17, Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. and Oide et al. teaches the housing component of claim 2, wherein the base body has two opposite sides with respect to the third direction (see e.g. Koshiol et al., Fig. 3, housing 312 has opposing lateral sides that read on the two opposite sides), one of which can be defined as a lower side and the other as an upper side.
Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. does not teach that a degassing opening is arranged in the lower side, in the center with respect to the first and second direction.
Hwang et al., also working in the field of battery housing design, teaches a battery case (see e.g. case 110, Hwang et al.: Fig. 1) in which said battery case has a degassing opening disposed in the center of a side of the case that can reasonably be described as the lower side (see e.g. venting portion 130, which covers an opening in case 110, Hwang et al.: [0043]-[0044] and Fig. 1). Hwang et al. teaches that the battery can generate gas during operation, which can lead to a pressure increase and potentially an explosion of the battery (see e.g. Hwang et al.: [0007]-[0008]). Further, Hwang et al. teaches that a degassing opening improves the safety of the battery by allowing gas to be discharged to the outside (see e.g. Hwang et al.: [0007]-[0008]). While Hwang et al.’s battery has a pouch-style case rather than the can-style case of Lee et al., the problem of a pressure buildup would apply to both types of battery cases.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing component of Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. and Oide et al. by adding the degassing opening taught by Hwang et al. to the lower side of Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al.’s base body such that the degassing opening is in the center with respect to the first and second direction. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. and Oide et al.’s battery housing in this way in order to allow excess pressure to be discharged and thereby improve the safety of the battery, as taught by Hwang et al..
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshiol et al. (US 2020/0083492) in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0049623) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 2023/0231234).
As to claim 18, Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches the housing component of claim 3, wherein the base body has two opposite sides with respect to the third direction (see e.g. Koshiol et al., Fig. 3, housing 312 has opposing lateral sides that read on the two opposite sides), one of which can be defined as a lower side and the other as an upper side.
Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. does not teach that a degassing opening is arranged in the lower side, in the center with respect to the first and second direction.
Hwang et al., also working in the field of battery housing design, teaches a battery case (see e.g. case 110, Hwang et al.: Fig. 1) in which said battery case has a degassing opening disposed in the center of a side of the case that can reasonably be described as the lower side (see e.g. venting portion 130, which covers an opening in case 110, Hwang et al.: [0043]-[0044] and Fig. 1). Hwang et al. teaches that the battery can generate gas during operation, which can lead to a pressure increase and potentially an explosion of the battery (see e.g. Hwang et al.: [0007]-[0008]). Further, Hwang et al. teaches that a degassing opening improves the safety of the battery by allowing gas to be discharged to the outside (see e.g. Hwang et al.: [0007]-[0008]). While Hwang et al.’s battery has a pouch-style case rather than the can-style case of Lee et al., the problem of a pressure buildup would apply to both types of battery cases.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing component of Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. by adding the degassing opening taught by Hwang et al. to the lower side of Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al.’s base body such that the degassing opening is in the center with respect to the first and second direction. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al.’s battery housing in this way in order to allow excess pressure to be discharged and thereby improve the safety of the battery, as taught by Hwang et al..
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshiol et al. (US 2020/0083492) in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0049623) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 2023/0231234).
As to claim 19, Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches the housing component of claim 4, wherein the base body has two opposite sides with respect to the third direction (see e.g. Koshiol et al., Fig. 3, housing 312 has opposing lateral sides that read on the two opposite sides), one of which can be defined as a lower side and the other as an upper side.
Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. does not teach that a degassing opening is arranged in the lower side, in the center with respect to the first and second direction.
Hwang et al., also working in the field of battery housing design, teaches a battery case (see e.g. case 110, Hwang et al.: Fig. 1) in which said battery case has a degassing opening disposed in the center of a side of the case that can reasonably be described as the lower side (see e.g. venting portion 130, which covers an opening in case 110, Hwang et al.: [0043]-[0044] and Fig. 1). Hwang et al. teaches that the battery can generate gas during operation, which can lead to a pressure increase and potentially an explosion of the battery (see e.g. Hwang et al.: [0007]-[0008]). Further, Hwang et al. teaches that a degassing opening improves the safety of the battery by allowing gas to be discharged to the outside (see e.g. Hwang et al.: [0007]-[0008]). While Hwang et al.’s battery has a pouch-style case rather than the can-style case of Lee et al., the problem of a pressure buildup would apply to both types of battery cases.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing component of Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. by adding the degassing opening taught by Hwang et al. to the lower side of Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al.’s base body such that the degassing opening is in the center with respect to the first and second direction. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al.’s battery housing in this way in order to allow excess pressure to be discharged and thereby improve the safety of the battery, as taught by Hwang et al..
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshiol et al. (US 2020/0083492) in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0049623) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 2023/0231234).
As to claim 20, Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches the housing component of claim 5, wherein the base body has two opposite sides with respect to the third direction (see e.g. Koshiol et al., Fig. 3, housing 312 has opposing lateral sides that read on the two opposite sides), one of which can be defined as a lower side and the other as an upper side.
Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. does not teach that a degassing opening is arranged in the lower side, in the center with respect to the first and second direction.
Hwang et al., also working in the field of battery housing design, teaches a battery case (see e.g. case 110, Hwang et al.: Fig. 1) in which said battery case has a degassing opening disposed in the center of a side of the case that can reasonably be described as the lower side (see e.g. venting portion 130, which covers an opening in case 110, Hwang et al.: [0043]-[0044] and Fig. 1). Hwang et al. teaches that the battery can generate gas during operation, which can lead to a pressure increase and potentially an explosion of the battery (see e.g. Hwang et al.: [0007]-[0008]). Further, Hwang et al. teaches that a degassing opening improves the safety of the battery by allowing gas to be discharged to the outside (see e.g. Hwang et al.: [0007]-[0008]). While Hwang et al.’s battery has a pouch-style case rather than the can-style case of Lee et al., the problem of a pressure buildup would apply to both types of battery cases.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing component of Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. by adding the degassing opening taught by Hwang et al. to the lower side of Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al.’s base body such that the degassing opening is in the center with respect to the first and second direction. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al.’s battery housing in this way in order to allow excess pressure to be discharged and thereby improve the safety of the battery, as taught by Hwang et al..
Allowable Subject Matter
Pending the resolution of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 112(b) set forth above, claims 4 and 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 4 and 12-13, Koshiol et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches the housing component of claim 1, wherein the edge area (see e.g. Illustration 3 above) has a second section with respect to the first direction, which adjoins the first section (see e.g. Lee et al.: Fig. 3 and Illustrations 4 below), the second section comprises an inner side facing toward the interior, which is inclined with respect to the first direction (see e.g. Lee et al.: Fig. 3 and Illustration 4 below), in a second angle of inclination that is less than the first angle of inclination and that is in the single-digit degree range (see e.g. Lee et al.: Fig. 3 and Illustration 5 below, the highlighted second section comprises an inner side facing toward the interior of the housing).
PNG
media_image7.png
343
437
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Illustration 4: Reproduction with modification of Fig. 3 of Lee et al..
This second section is parallel to the height direction, which can reasonably be interpreted as being inclined by a second angle of zero degrees, which lies outside the claimed range of between one degree and two degrees. There is no teaching or suggestion in the art of record that would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the second section with an angled shape in the range of between one degree and two degrees.
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 ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 07/31/2026
Prosecution Insights