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 Amendment
In response to the amendment received on June 17, 2026:
Claims 1-15 are pending;
The 102 rejection to Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0252058) set forth in the previous Office Action stands as modified in light of the amendment;
The 102 rejections to Lee et al. and Katayama et al. set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0252058).
As to claim 1, Kim discloses a battery pack comprising:
at least one battery module 50 including at least one battery cell 10;
a case tray 210 configured to support the at least one battery module 50;
a case cover 220 coupled with the case tray 210 to cover the at least one battery module 50;
a sealing gasket 230 disposed between the case tray 210 and the case cover 220 to prevent penetration of moisture or foreign substance into the at least one battery module 50; and
a reinforcing unit 221/225 provided to the case cover 220 to be disposed close to adjacent to the sealing gasket 230, and portion 225, in contact with and adjacent to the interior wall surface of the case 210 is sufficiently configured to prevent twisting of the case cover 220 when the case tray 210 and the case cover 220 are coupled (Fig. 4A and annotated Fig. 4B).
PNG
media_image1.png
712
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
362
755
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As can be seen above the portion of the downward reinforcing unit 225 directly contacting the case tray 210 is not in contact with the sealing gasket 230 and is therefore separated from the sealing gasket.
As to claim 2, the case tray 210 and case cover 220 are mutually coupled using fastening unit 20 wherein the fastening unit 20 penetrates the sealing gasket 230 when the case tray 210 and case cover 220 are coupled and wherein portions of the reinforcing unit 221/225 are disposed oppositely with the fastening unit 20 therebetween (Fig. 4B).
As to claim 4, the reinforcing unit 221/225 has a thickness corresponding to at least a thickness of the sealing gasket 230 (Fig. 4B).
As to claim 12, the battery pack above is useful in electric vehicles (para. [0004]).
As to claim 13, Kim teaches that the relative thicknesses of all elements therein are the same, thus the thickness of the reinforcing unit 221/225 is not greater than the thickness of the sealing gasket 230 (Fig. 4B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the reinforcing unit 225 of Kim is one of contact and overlap and does not disclose or suggest the reinforcing unit separated from the gasket and not in contact with the gasket.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
PNG
media_image3.png
318
619
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As can be seen above the portion of the downward reinforcing unit 225 directly contacting the case tray 210 is not in contact with the sealing gasket 230 and is therefore separated from the sealing gasket.
Therefore, Kim still anticipates claims 1, 2, 4, 12 and 13 and the rejection stands.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: claim 15 incorporates the allowable subject matter of claim 5 (noted in the previous Office Action) into independent form and is allowable for the same reasons expressed in item 9 of the previous Office Action, incorporated herein.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 3, 5-11 and 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 3, none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, are held to reasonably teach suggest or render obvious the battery pack therein, including all of the features of base claim 1, wherein the reinforcing unit is separated from the sealing gasket and is not in contact with the sealing gasket and wherein portions of the reinforcing unit are disposed oppositely with the sealing gasket interposed therebetween. For example, Kim simply does not teach or suggest this arrangement.
With respect to claims 5-11, see item 9 of the previous Office Action, incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 14, none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, are held to reasonably teach suggest or render obvious the battery pack therein, including all of the features of base claim 1, wherein the reinforcing unit and the sealing gasket are separated by a parallel gap. For example, Kim simply does not teach or suggest this arrangement.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights