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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species A (Claims 1-7, 10-16 and 26) in the reply filed on 11/10/25 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/11/24, 6/24/24, and 11/27/25 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/13/23. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-2, 13, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 208955087 U (“CN’087”).
As to Claim 1:
CN’087 discloses a battery cover plate assembly comprising a cover plate, because CN’087 teaches a top compression plate (cover plate) 600 having a connecting hole section 601a and a receiving hole section 601b (Fig. 4; p. 4, lines 6–12), thus teaching “a cover plate” and a first connection portion arranged on the cover plate;
an insulating piece because it teaches a fixing part comprising an insulating piece with a protrusion 501 (see p. 3, lines 22–27; Fig. 3). The insulating piece is disposed on one side of the cover plate, consistent with the assembly structure shown in Figs. 3–6;
the insulating piece is provided with a second connection portion, namely protrusion 501, which includes an elastic leg structure 501b configured for insertion into the connecting hole section 601a (see p. 4, lines 13–20; p. 5, lines 1–4);
the first connection portion and second connection portion are respectively a mounting hole and a protrusion, because connecting hole section 601a is a mounting hole formed in the cover plate, and protrusion 501 is the mating connection structure on the insulating piece (see p. 4, lines 6–12);
the protrusion is in an interference fit with the mounting hole, because the elastic legs 501b expand into the receiving hole section 601b after insertion, producing an interference engagement that locks the protrusion in place (see p. 4, lines 13–20; Fig. 6);
the area of an opening of the mounting hole is less than a maximum area of a cross-section of the mounting hole, because connecting hole section 601a at the opening is smaller in diameter than receiving hole section 601b, creating a stepped-hole structure (see p. 4, lines 6–12; Fig. 4); and
the protrusion is inserted into the mounting hole through the opening of the mounting hole, because protrusion 501 is inserted first into connecting hole section 601a and then into receiving hole section 601b through this reduced-diameter opening (see p. 4, lines 13–20; p. 5, lines 1–4).
As to Claim 2:
CN’087 discloses the battery cover plate assembly according to claim 1, including a cover plate having a mounting hole with a reduced-diameter opening, and a protrusion inserted through the opening into a larger-diameter interior portion of the hole (p. 4, lines 6–20; Figs. 3–6).
CN’087 further discloses that “the area of the opening of the mounting hole is less than an area of a bottom of the mounting hole”, because the connecting hole section 601a (the opening) has a smaller diameter than the receiving hole section 601b (the bottom portion of the hole). This stepped structure is described where the connecting hole section 601a is the upper, smaller-diameter opening and receiving hole section 601b is the larger-diameter region deeper in the hole (see p. 4, lines 6–12; Fig. 4).
CN’087 also discloses that “the bottom of the mounting hole is one end of the mounting hole away from the opening of the mounting hole”, because receiving hole section 601b is the lower portion of the mounting hole, positioned away from the opening, and receives the elastic expansion of the protrusion 501 (see p. 4, lines 6–12; Fig. 4).
As to Claim 13:
CN’087 discloses the battery cover plate assembly according to claim 1, including a cover plate 600 having a mounting hole composed of a connecting hole section 601a and a receiving hole section 601b (p. 4, lines 6–12; Fig. 4). These hole sections are depicted as fully enclosed, circular openings formed through the plate and having continuous circumferential walls.
CN’087 further discloses that the protrusion 501 of the insulating piece is inserted into this mounting hole to form an interference fit (see p. 4, lines 13–20; Figs. 3–6), demonstrating that the mounting hole is a circumferentially closed hole, because insertion of the protrusion requires the hole to be fully surrounded by a continuous boundary.
As to Claim 26:
CN’087 discloses a battery, as the title of the reference states “Secondary Battery…” and the specification repeatedly describes structures belonging to a secondary battery, including its top cover plate assembly, fixing plate, and associated components of the battery housing and sealing structure (p. 1, lines 1–10; p. 2, lines 1–12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 208955087 U (“CN’087”), as applied to Claim 2, and further in view of CN 110797479 A (“CN’479”).
As to Claim 3:
CN’087 discloses a battery cover plate assembly according to claim 2, including a cover plate having a mounting hole with a smaller-diameter opening (connecting hole section 601a) and a larger-diameter internal region (receiving hole section 601b), where the protrusion 501 is inserted through the opening into the deeper region (p. 4, lines 6–20; Figs. 3–6). CN’087 therefore teaches the cover plate, the insulating piece, the mounting hole, and the protrusion inserted in interference fit.
However, CN’087 does not disclose that “the mounting hole comprises an expansion segment … wherein an area of a cross section of the expansion segment gradually increases in a direction from the opening of the mounting hole towards the bottom of the mounting hole.” CN’087 instead teaches a stepped hole—i.e., a smaller opening 601a followed by a larger-diameter receiving hole 601b—with a discrete transition rather than a gradually increasing expansion (see p. 4, lines 6–12; Fig. 4).
CN’479 discloses the missing limitation by teaching a mounting or receiving hole having a tapered, gradually expanding segment at its opening, where the cross-sectional area increases progressively in the direction of insertion of the mating member, forming a frustum-like expansion region used to guide insertion and reduce assembly resistance (p. 3, lines 15–25; Fig. 2). CN’479 therefore teaches an expansion segment whose cross-sectional area gradually increases from the opening toward the bottom of the hole.
CN’087 and CN’479 are analogous art because both references relate to mechanical joining structures used in battery or electrical component assemblies, each addressing how protruding members are inserted into holes or recesses for secure attachment. Both deal with the geometric configuration of connection features and with improving assembly performance, retention, and positioning of components, making them reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by Claim 3.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the stepped opening of CN’087 to include the gradually expanding tapered segment taught by CN’479 in order to improve insertion guidance, reduce assembly force, and enhance alignment accuracy of the protrusion during installation. Such modification represents a predictable and routine optimization of connection geometry using known design features, and would have resulted in the claimed expansion segment with gradually increasing cross section.
As to Claim 4:
CN’087 discloses the battery cover plate assembly according to claim 3, including a cover plate having a mounting hole with a smaller-diameter opening (connecting hole section 601a) and a larger-diameter internal region (receiving hole section 601b), and a protrusion 501 inserted into the mounting hole in an interference fit (p. 4, lines 6–20; Figs. 3–6). CN’087 therefore teaches the stepped-hole arrangement of claim 3, with an opening section and a deeper region of increased diameter.
However, CN’087 does not disclose the requirement of Claim 4 that “the mounting hole further comprises a straight hole segment, the straight hole segment communicates with one end of the expansion segment away from the opening of the expansion segment, and an area of a cross section of the straight hole segment is consistent in a direction from one end … toward the bottom of the mounting hole.” In CN’087, receiving hole section 601b is depicted only as a larger-diameter region following the opening section 601a, with no explicit teaching that this region forms a straight, constant-diameter cylindrical hole segment (see p. 4, lines 6–12; Fig. 4).
CN’479 teaches the missing limitation. CN’479 discloses a mounting or receiving hole that includes both (1) a tapered or gradually expanding segment near the opening (an expansion segment), and (2) a straight cylindrical hole segment that communicates with the end of the tapered segment and maintains a consistent cross-sectional area along its length (p. 3, lines 15–28; Fig. 2). CN’479 therefore teaches exactly the structural configuration recited in Claim 4: a tapered expansion region followed by a straight, constant-diameter region deeper in the hole.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the straight cylindrical hole segment taught by CN’479 into the stepped mounting-hole structure of CN’087, because CN’479 teaches that adding a straight segment following an expansion segment improves insertion guidance, stabilizes interference retention, and provides predictable mechanical seating of the protrusion. Adopting CN’479’s combined tapered-plus-straight geometry in CN’087 represents a routine optimization of known hole-and-protrusion joining structures.
As to Claim 5:
CN’087 discloses the battery cover plate assembly according to claim 4, including a cover plate having a mounting hole with a smaller-diameter opening section 601a and a larger-diameter receiving section 601b, into which protrusion 501 of the insulating piece is inserted in an interference fit (p. 4, lines 6–20; Figs. 3–6). CN’087 therefore teaches the stepped-hole and protrusion arrangement of claim 4.
However, CN’087 does not disclose that “the expansion segment is a frustum hole segment, and the straight hole segment is a cylindrical hole segment.” Although CN’087 shows an opening section 601a and a deeper region 601b, the reference does not describe 601a as a frustum-shaped tapered segment, nor does it describe 601b as a cylindrical straight segment with a consistent diameter (see p. 4, lines 6–12; Fig. 4). Instead, CN’087 shows only a discrete step change between two diameters, without defining either region by a frustum or cylindrical geometry.
CN’479, however, teaches the missing limitations by disclosing a mounting-hole structure comprising a tapered frustum-shaped expansion segment near the opening and a cylindrical straight hole segment deeper in the structure (p. 3, lines 15–28; Fig. 2). CN’479 explicitly presents the expansion segment as a conical (frustum) guide that transitions smoothly to a cylindrical portion of constant diameter, which corresponds to the claim requirements that the expansion segment be a frustum hole segment and the straight hole segment be a cylindrical hole segment.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the stepped mounting hole of CN’087 to include the frustum-shaped expansion segment and cylindrical straight hole segment taught by CN’479, because CN’479 teaches that such geometries improve insertion guidance, reduce assembly resistance, and provide stable retention once the protrusion is seated. Adopting the known frustum-plus-cylinder hole configuration of CN’479 in the mounting-hole structure of CN’087 represents a predictable and routine design optimization for improving mechanical assembly characteristics.
As to Claim 7:
CN’087 discloses the battery cover plate assembly according to claim 4, including a cover plate with a mounting hole having two diameter regions (opening 601a and receiving region 601b) and a protrusion 501 of an insulating piece inserted into the mounting hole (p. 4, lines 6–20; Figs. 3–6). CN’087 further discloses that protrusion 501 comprises elastic legs 501b that flex inward upon insertion and expand into the larger-diameter region 601b, thereby teaching that “the protrusion comprises an elastic portion” (see p. 4, lines 13–20).
However, CN’087 does not disclose that “a portion of the protrusion is located in the straight hole segment, wherein at least part of a wall surface of the straight hole segment is spaced apart from the protrusion.” While CN’087 shows a larger-diameter region 601b, it does not explicitly describe that this region forms a straight cylindrical hole segment, nor does it describe that the protrusion occupies only part of this straight segment with a clearance or spacing along at least part of the hole wall (see p. 4, lines 6–12; Fig. 4).
CN’479 teaches the missing limitations. CN’479 discloses a mounting hole comprising a straight cylindrical segment positioned below a tapered expansion segment, and further teaches that the inserted protruding member does not fully contact the cylindrical sidewall, thereby creating a spacing between at least part of the wall surface of the straight segment and the inserted protrusion (p. 3, lines 15–28; Fig. 2). This reference therefore teaches both (1) the straight hole segment recited in Claim 4 and (2) the condition of spacing between that straight segment and the protrusion, as required by Claim 7.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the mounting-hole structure of CN’087 to incorporate the straight cylindrical segment and the partial spacing condition taught by CN’479, because CN’479 teaches that providing clearance along a portion of the cylindrical hole segment facilitates easier insertion, allows elastic elements of the protrusion to expand without excessive friction, and improves assembly stability and stress distribution. Incorporating such known structural improvements into the CN’087 hole–protrusion interface represents a predictable optimization of the connection geometry.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 208955087 U (“CN’087”) in view of CN 110797479 A (“CN’479”), as applied to Claim 5 above, and further in view of EP 2736091 A1 (“EP’091”).
As to Claim 6:
CN’087 discloses the battery cover plate assembly according to claim 5, including a mounting hole having two regions of different diameters—smaller opening section 601a and larger receiving section 601b—into which protrusion 501 is inserted in an interference fit (p. 4, lines 6–20; Figs. 3–6). CN’087 therefore teaches the connection structure of claim 5 and its stepped hole geometry.
However, CN’087 does not disclose that “an included angle between a hole wall of the expansion segment and a hole wall of the straight hole segment is 135° to 179°.” CN’087 provides no teaching of an angular relationship between a tapered expansion segment and a straight cylindrical segment, nor does it describe any particular angle between hole wall surfaces (see p. 4, lines 6–12; Fig. 4).
CN’479 discloses the missing structural context by teaching a mounting hole with (1) a tapered frustum expansion segment and (2) a straight cylindrical hole segment that communicates with the frustum (p. 3, lines 15–28; Fig. 2). This meets the structural foundation necessary for defining an included angle between the tapered wall and the cylindrical wall.
EP’091 further teaches the specific angular relationship between surfaces of adjacent hole segments. EP’091 discloses that tapered guide surfaces may transition to straight cylindrical surfaces at obtuse included angles approaching a straight-line continuation, such as 135° to 179°, to facilitate insertion, reduce torsional stress, or smooth the transition between sections ([0034]–[0037]; Fig. 4). EP’091 therefore teaches the precise range of included angles recited in Claim 6.
CN’087, CN’479, and EP’091 are analogous arts because all three references concern mechanical joining geometries in battery or electronic structural components, specifically the engineering of hole–protrusion interfaces. They each address how the shape of a hole influences insertion forces, alignment, load distribution, or mechanical retention. A person of ordinary skill in the art would naturally consult references such as CN’479 and EP’091 when optimizing the hole geometry of CN’087.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the stepped connection hole of CN’087 to include the frustum-shaped expansion segment and cylindrical straight hole segment taught by CN’479, and further to adopt the obtuse included angle between the frustum and cylindrical walls taught by EP’091, because EP’091 explains that such angles (135°–179°) provide smoother transitions, improved insertion guidance, and reduced deformation or damage during assembly. Implementing these known and predictable optimizations to the hole geometry of CN’087 would have resulted in the included angle specified in Claim 6.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 208955087 U (“CN’087”) in view of CN 112713342 A (“CN’342”).
As to Claim 10:
CN’087 discloses the battery cover plate assembly according to claim 1, including a cover plate having a mounting hole with a smaller opening region (connecting hole section 601a) and a larger bottom region (receiving hole section 601b). CN’087 further discloses that a protrusion 501 of an insulating piece is inserted through opening 601a and into the larger inner region 601b, giving rise to an interference fit (p. 4, lines 6–20; Figs. 3–6). CN’087 also teaches that the area of the opening of the mounting hole is less than the area of the bottom of the mounting hole, because the receiving section 601b has a larger cross-sectional area than opening 601a (see p. 4, lines 6–12).
However, CN’087 does not disclose that “the mounting hole is a blind hole.” The description and figures of CN’087 show the mounting hole as a through-hole with two diameter regions and do not indicate a closed bottom surface (Figs. 3–6; p. 4, lines 6–12).
CN’342 teaches the missing limitation. CN’342 discloses a battery module structure having blind holes, including receiving hole 114, which has a closed bottom surface and does not extend through the entire plate (p. 3, lines 10–18; Fig. 3). CN’342 therefore teaches the blind-hole configuration omitted in CN’087 and demonstrates that blind holes are commonly used in battery structural assemblies.
CN’087 and CN’342 are analogous arts because both references concern mounting geometry and fastening interactions between protrusions and receiving features within battery cover or battery module structural components. Both address connection stability, assembly behavior, and hole design in similar contexts, making them reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by Claim 10.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the through-hole structure of CN’087 to a blind-hole structure as taught by CN’342, because CN’342 explains that blind holes provide improved sealing, controlled insertion depth, and enhanced mechanical retention in battery-related assemblies. Incorporating the known blind-hole configuration into the stepped-hole structure of CN’087 represents a routine and predictable design optimization.
As to Claim 11:
CN’087 discloses the battery cover plate assembly according to claim 10, including a mounting hole composed of two regions—opening section 601a and larger-diameter region 601b—into which protrusion 501 is inserted to form an interference fit (p. 4, lines 6–20; Figs. 3–6). CN’087 also teaches the stepped size relationship, wherein the area of opening 601a is less than the area of the bottom region 601b (see p. 4, lines 6–12).
However, CN’087 does not disclose that “a top end of the protrusion is spaced apart from the bottom of the mounting hole.” In CN’087, the structure suggests that the elastic legs 501b expand into the larger-diameter region 601b, but the reference does not explicitly state that the top end of protrusion 501 does not reach or contact the bottom surface of the hole (Figs. 4–6).
CN’342 teaches the missing limitation. CN’342 discloses a blind receiving hole 114 with a closed bottom surface, and a positioning or fastening protrusion 174 inserted into the blind hole such that the protrusion does not reach the bottom of the hole, thereby leaving a spacing between the top of the protrusion and the bottom surface (p. 3, lines 10–18; Fig. 3). CN’342 therefore teaches the spacing condition explicitly required by claim 11.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the mounting-hole/protrusion engagement structure of CN’087 such that the top end of the protrusion is spaced apart from the bottom of the mounting hole, as taught by CN’342, because providing spacing at the bottom of a blind hole avoids excessive stress concentration, prevents bottoming-out during insertion, and improves assembly alignment and tolerance accommodation. A POSITA would recognize that the spacing arrangement of CN’342 yields predictable performance benefits and would naturally incorporate this feature into the hole geometry of CN’087.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 208955087 U (“CN’087”) in view of CN 112713342 A (“CN’342”), as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of US 2020/295319 A1 (“US’319”).
As to Claim 12:
CN’087 discloses the battery cover plate assembly according to claim 11, including a cover plate with mounting hole sections 601a and 601b, and a protrusion 501 of an insulating piece inserted into the stepped mounting hole in an interference fit (p. 4, lines 6–20; Figs. 3–6). CN’087 further teaches the size relationship in which the bottom region of the mounting hole (601b) has a larger cross-sectional area than the opening 601a (see p. 4, lines 6–12).
However, CN’087 does not disclose the limitation of Claim 12 requiring that “a distance between the top end of the protrusion and the bottom of the mounting hole is 0.01 mm to 1 mm.” CN’087 does not teach or suggest any numerical spacing requirement between the protrusion top and the hole bottom (Figs. 4–6).
CN’342 teaches the missing structural concept of providing spacing between the top end of a protrusion and the bottom of a blind receiving hole, as shown in blind hole 114 and protrusion 174 in which the protrusion does not contact the hole bottom, leaving a deliberate gap (p. 3, lines 10–18; Fig. 3). However, CN’342 does not teach the numerical distance required by Claim 12.
US’319 teaches the missing quantitative limitation. US’319 discloses mechanical engagement structures in electrochemical components where controlled small gaps are intentionally maintained between opposing interfaces to reduce stress, accommodate expansion, and improve assembly tolerances. US’319 specifically teaches micron to sub-millimeter sized spacing ranges (e.g., sealing gaps, clearance ranges of approximately 0.01 mm to 1 mm) that allow compensating deformation or controlled compression in battery component interfaces ([0061]–[0065], Fig. 4B). Thus, US’319 provides express support for the claimed dimensional range.
CN’087, CN’342, and US’319 are analogous arts. All three references concern assembly interfaces, insertion tolerances, and spacing relationships within battery or battery-related structural components. CN’087 teaches protrusion–hole engagement, CN’342 teaches blind-hole spacing between a protrusion tip and the hole bottom, and US’319 teaches quantitative clearance ranges used within battery structural interfaces. Their teachings collectively relate to the same field and same problem: engineering insertion geometry and spacing tolerances in battery structural assemblies.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate into the protrusion–hole assembly of CN’087 the spacing arrangement taught by CN’342 and to further size that spacing according to the known clearance ranges taught by US’319 (0.01 mm–1 mm), because controlled micro-scale gaps are recognized to prevent bottoming-out, reduce insertion stress, accommodate thermal/mechanical deformation, and improve assembly reliability in battery component structures. Implementing the known spacing range of US’319 within the spaced blind-hole configuration suggested by CN’342 represents a predictable optimization of the connection geometry.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 208955087 U (“CN’087”), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/348630 A1 (“US’630”).
As to Claim 14:
CN’087 discloses the battery cover plate assembly according to claim 1, including a cover plate 600 having a mounting hole composed of opening section 601a and larger inner region 601b, and an insulating piece having protrusion 501 inserted into the mounting hole to create an interference fit (p. 4, lines 6–20; Figs. 3–6). CN’087 therefore teaches the cover plate, the mounting hole, the insulating piece, and the protrusion insertion structure required by claim 1.
However, CN’087 does not disclose that “an upper portion of the protrusion is provided with a guide surface, so that the protrusion extends into the mounting hole through the guide surface.” Protrusion 501 includes elastic legs 501b for retention, but CN’087 does not describe any chamfer, taper, curved surface, or other type of guide surface on the upper portion of protrusion 501 to facilitate insertion into opening 601a (Figs. 3–6; p. 4, lines 13–20).
US’630 teaches the missing limitation. US’630 discloses protruding engagement members such as hooks 430 and locking tabs 440 that include sloped, angled, or curved leading surfaces specifically designed to guide the protruding member into a mating structure during assembly ([0041]–[0045]; Figs. 4–5B). These disclosed guide surfaces function to align the protrusion with the receiving structure and reduce insertion force, directly corresponding to the function recited in Claim 14. Although the structures in US’630 are hooks, the reference teaches the general engineering principle that protrusions may be shaped with guide surfaces at their leading/upper portions to facilitate insertion into a corresponding receiving feature.
CN’087 and US’630 are analogous arts because both references pertain to mechanical joining structures used in assemblies where protruding features are inserted into holes or mating components, and both address assembly alignment, insertion guidance, and structural engagement. A person of ordinary skill in the art would naturally look to US’630 when considering improvements to insertion characteristics of the protrusion–hole interface taught by CN’087.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the protrusion of CN’087 to include an upper guide surface as taught by US’630, because US’630 explains that shaping the leading portion of a protrusion with a sloped or curved surface improves insertion alignment, reduces assembly force, and enhances engagement reliability. Applying this known design feature to the protrusion of CN’087 represents a predictable optimization of insertion geometry.
As to Claim 15:
CN’087 discloses the battery cover plate assembly according to claim 14, including a cover plate 600 with a mounting hole (601a, 601b) and a protrusion 501 of an insulating piece inserted into that mounting hole (p. 4, lines 6–20; Figs. 3–6). CN’087 also discloses elastic legs 501b on the protrusion that expand to engage the inner diameter region 601b. CN’087 therefore teaches the structural requirements of claim 14, except for the guide-surface modification.
However, CN’087 does not disclose that “an extension line of the guide surface from a bottom end to a top end is a curve or a straight line.” CN’087 does not describe any guide surface on the upper portion of protrusion 501, nor does it disclose any geometric characteristics—straight, curved, tapered, or otherwise—of such a guide surface (Figs. 3–6; p. 4, lines 13–20).
US’630 teaches the missing limitation. US’630 discloses that protruding engagement elements (e.g., hooks 430 and locking tabs 440) may include angled, sloped, or curved guide surfaces that facilitate insertion into mating structures ([0041]–[0045]; Figs. 4–5B). The reference explicitly shows guide surfaces whose extension lines are straight (sloped/angled) or curved, matching the forms recited in Claim 15. US’630 therefore teaches that the upper guiding region of a protrusion may be shaped with either a straight-line taper or a curved contour to promote guided entry into a receiving structure.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the protrusion of CN’087 to include a guide surface having a straight or curved extension line as taught by US’630, because US’630 teaches that such guide geometries improve insertion alignment, reduce the force required to engage the receiving structure, and enhance assembly robustness. Implementing the known guide-surface shapes described in US’630 on the protrusion of CN’087 represents a predictable variation that yields well-understood mechanical benefits.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 208955087 U (“CN’087”), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/416337 A1 (“US’337”).
As to Claim 16:
CN’087 discloses the battery cover plate assembly according to claim 1, including a cover plate 600 having a mounting hole formed by opening section 601a and receiving section 601b, and an insulating piece having protrusion 501 inserted into the mounting hole to form an interference fit (p. 4, lines 6–20; Figs. 3–6). CN’087 therefore teaches the basic connection structure, including a protrusion inserted through a reduced-diameter opening into a larger-diameter inner region.
However, CN’087 does not disclose that “an adhesive layer is arranged between the protrusion and the mounting hole.” CN’087 relies entirely on mechanical interference between elastic legs 501b and the stepped hole structure 601a/601b and contains no teaching or suggestion of applying adhesive at the protrusion–hole interface (Figs. 4–6; p. 4, lines 13–20).
US’337 teaches the missing concept of arranging adhesive in the vicinity of protrusion–hole or protrusion–recess interfaces. US’337 discloses a battery component structure in which adhesive is dispensed around protruding portions (e.g., protruding part 131) and explicitly describes an adhesive-overflowing groove formed between the protruding portion and the edge of a mounting or receiving region to accommodate adhesive flow ([0030]–[0033]; Figs. 2–4). US’337 further teaches forming an annular adhesive dispense layer at the interface where a protruding structure engages an insulating or cover plate ([0028]–[0030]). These teachings collectively demonstrate that adhesive may be intentionally located between a protrusion and the surrounding hole region to enhance sealing, retention, and mechanical stability.
CN’087 and US’337 are analogous arts because both references relate to mechanical joining structures in battery cover or battery module assemblies, including the engineering of protrusion–hole interactions and the integration of sealing or bonding layers within these interfaces. Both references address insertion, retention, sealing, and structural joining in the same field of lithium-ion battery component fabrication.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the protrusion–hole engagement structure of CN’087 to include an adhesive layer between the protrusion and the mounting hole as taught by US’337, because US’337 explains that incorporating adhesive at or around protruding engagement structures improves sealing performance, enhances structural fixation, controls adhesive overflow, and increases assembly reliability. A POSITA would recognize that applying adhesive to the interface between protrusion 501 and mounting hole 601a/601b of CN’087 is a predictable and routine adaptation to improve strength or sealing in battery assemblies, consistent with the adhesive-dispenser and adhesive-groove teachings of US’337.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/JIMMY VO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/JIMMY VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723