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 .
The Applicant has added new claim 16. The pending claims are claims 1-16.
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) 1-4, 11, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al., KR 20180024972.
Regarding claim 1, Park et al., teaches a battery module (0004; 0009) comprising: at least one battery cell (0033-0034); and a module case (0004; 0009; 0014) comprising: a case body (0014; 0072) having an inner space for accommodating the at least one battery cell (0073) and an open end on an upper side (0020; 0066; 0074); and a top plate (cap plate; 0084) that covers the upper side of the case body (0020; 0066; 0074) and is coupled to an upper portion of the case body (0010; 0066; 0082), wherein the open end of the case body has and upwardly protruding assembly guide (0032) and the top plate (0010-0011) has an assembly guide hole busbar assembly (0103) that is press-fitted (“snap protrusion 260 and 300”) (0051) with the assembly guide protrusion (0005; 0009; 0018), and wherein a perimeter where the open end of the case body and the top plate are in contact with each other is welded (0015; 0074; 0077).
Regarding claim 2, Park et al., teaches wherein the case body is a sealed box (0014-0017) except for the upper side (0017; 0019; 0074; 0077).
Regarding claim 3, Park et al., teaches wherein the case body (case body 760) (0014; 0017; 0103) further comprises a bottom plate forming the bottom surface (0059; 0063-0065) and a wall plate forming a front wall (0037; 0040; 0052), a rearwall (0044; 0052), a left wall (“one side of battery module”; 0068), and a right and wherein the open end of the case body is formed on an upper end (“edge”) of the wall plate (0014; 0017).
Regarding claim 4, Park et al., teaches wherein the open end of the case body is a flange (“snap protrusion” 260 and 300; Fig. 8-9) horizontally protruding outward from the wall plate (0051; 0062).
Regarding claim 11, Park et al., teaches battery pack (0008-0009) comprising a battery module (0032-0033) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Park et al., teaches the assembly guide protrusion (snap projection 260) (snap coupling parts 225 and 245) is press-fitted (“snap-coupled”) (0010; 0050) into the assembly guide hole (snap hook groove), the assembly guide hole surrounds the assembly guide protrusion on all side surfaces of the assembly guide protrusion (0050).
Thus, the claims are anticipated.
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.
Claim(s) 5-10, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., KR 20180024972, in view of Choi et al., KR 20190078521.
Regarding claim 5, Park et al., does not teach wherein the module case is formed of a clad metal in which dissimilar metals are bonded to each other.
Choi et al., teaches wherein the module case (0004; 0009) is formed of a clad metal (aluminum) (0068) in which dissimilar metals are bonded to each other (plates are joined together by welding) (0068; 0100-0101; 0135).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to insert the teachings of Choi into the teachings of Park because Choi gives the specific names of the metal used to manufacture the module case.
Regarding claim 6, Park et al., does not teach the claim limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 6, Choi et al., teaches wherein the case body comprises: an outside portion forming an outer surface of the case body (0011; 0017; 0019) and made of a first metal (aluminum) (0068); and an inside portion forming an inner surface of the case body (0019; 0023; 0034) wherein the open end of the case body (0075) is formed on an upper edge of the outside portion (0055; 0060). Choi teaches case made of the first metal (0068) (aluminum), and the second lid portion forms an inner surface of the top plate and is made of the second metal (0068; "aluminum material not limited to being formed of the same material, and may be formed of different materials").Choi does not teach a second metal having a higher melting point than a melting point of the first metal.
However, Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the
contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at
1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 7, Park et al., does not teach the claim limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 7, Choi et al., teaches wherein the top plate comprises a first lid portion and a second lid portion (0023; 0040), and wherein the first lid portion forms an outer surface of the top plate (0023; 0019; 0034) and is made of the first metal (0068) (aluminum), and the second lid portion forms an inner surface of the top plate and is made of the second metal (0068; “aluminum material…not limited to being formed of the same material, and may be formed of different materials”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to insert the teachings of Choi into the teachings of Park because Choi gives the specific names of the metal used to manufacture the module case.
Regarding claim 8, Park et al., does not teach the claim limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 8, Choi et al., teaches wherein the first lid portion is seated on an upper edge of the outside portion (0055), and the second lid portion is seated on an upper edge of the inside portion (0055).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Choi into the teachings of Park because the structure of a lid seated on an edge of the outside of the structure provides increased watertightness of the structure.
Regarding claim 9, Park et al., does not teach the claim limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 9, Choi et al., teaches wherein the assembly guide hole (fastening hole) is provided on an edge of the first lid portion (0131; 0133).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Choi into the teachings of Park because the structure of a lid seated on an edge of the outside of the structure provides increased watertightness of the structure.
Regarding claim 10, Park et al., does not teach the claim limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 10, Choi et al., teaches wherein the first lid portion and the second lid portion are provided to have a same surface area (0040), and wherein the assembly guide hole (fastening hole) is provided only on the edge of the second lid portion among the edges of the first lid portion and the second lid portion (0023; 0040).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Choi into the teachings of Park because the structure of a lid seated on an edge of the outside of the structure provides increased watertightness of the structure.
Regarding claim 12, Park et al., does not teach the claim limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 12, Choi et al., teaches wherein the assembly guide hole is on an edge of the second lid portion (0131).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Choi into the teachings of Park because the structure of a lid seated on an edge of the outside of the structure provides increased watertightness of the structure.
Regarding claim 13, Park et al., does not teach the claim limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 13, Choi et al., teaches wherein the assembly guide hole (fastening hole) does not extend through the first lid portion (0131).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Choi into the teachings of Park because the structure of the assembly guide hole and the location would provide increased water tightness of the structure.
Regarding claim 14, Park et al., does not teach the claim limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claim 14, Choi et al., teaches wherein the outside portion extends above the inside portion (0060; 0100).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Choi into the teachings of Park because the structure of outside portion extends above the inside portion provides increased watertightness of the structure.
Regarding claim 15, Park does not teach the claim limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 15, Choi et al., teaches wherein the top plate comprises a first lid portion and a second lid portion (0040), wherein the first lid portion forms an outer surface of the top plate (0023), and the second lid portion forms an inner surface of the top plate (0023), and wherein the first lid portion is seated on an upper edge of the outside portion of the case body (0055), and the second lid portion is seated on an upper edge of the inside portion of the case body (0019; 0023; 0034).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Choi does not disclose “the open end of the case body has an upwardly protruding assembly guide protrusion, and the top plate has an assembly guide hole that is press-fitted with the assembly guide protrusion.”
However, the rejection is now:
Claim(s) 1-4, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al., KR 20180024972.
Claim(s) 5-10, 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., KR 20180024972, in view of Choi et al., KR 20190078521.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights