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 .
Summary
This is the second Office Action based on Application 18/346,763 and the Response to Arguments/Remarks filed 05/21/2026.
Claims 1-2, 7, and 17-18 have been amended, claim 12 has been canceled, and new claims 20-21 have been added. Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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) 1-2, 13-14, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by PAPE (US 7,423,217 B2).
With respect to claims 1-2. PAPE teaches a housing assembly 10 (column 4 lines 52-55) which is taken to be the claimed accommodating apparatus. The housing assembly 10 includes a case 12 for enclosing components (column 4 lines 57-59) which is taken to be the claimed first box, a cover 18 which covers the case 12 (column 4 lines 55-60, and Figure 2) the cover 18 being taken to be the claimed second box. There is a gasket 20 disposed between the cover and the case, and prevents moisture from entering the case and damaging the electrical components (column 4 lines 57-60) the gasket 20 being the claimed bracket, and is disposed between the case 12 and the cover 18 (Figures 2 and 4). The gasket 20 is secured to the flange 40 of the case 12 (column 5 lines 10-14) the flange 40 is taken to be the claimed first sealing piece. The cover includes an end surface 102 which engages with the sealing portion 60 of the gasket 20 (column 7 lines 15-18) the end surface 102 is taken to be the claimed second sealing piece (see Figure 10). The side of the gasket 20 which faces the cover 18 includes a sealing portion 60 which includes a plurality of beads 64 which forms the claimed accommodating portion with the gaps between the beads 64 being the claimed groove (See Figure 6a).
With respect to claims 13-14. PAPE further includes a mounting collar 14 (column 4 lines 52-57) which is taken to be the claimed fastening piece. The case 12 includes a plurality set of grooves 50 which are adapted to receive a corresponding set of clamping arms 52 extending from the mounting collar 14 (column 5 lines 17-25). The mounting collar 14 then is outward from an outer periphery of the first sealing piece, the protection 40 (see Figure 8). The mounting collar 14 and the projections engage with the grooves, which allow for the case to be securely attached to the panel 16 (column 6 lines 50-55). Therefore the mounting collar is taken to lock the first box, second, box and the bracket together to the panel 16.
With respect to claim 20. The rejection of claim 1 from above is repeated here. PAPE is taken to include the first sealing piece, being the projection 40, which is then further defined as being the first sealing portion, and then there is the portion protruding from that towards the cap 18 and is taken to be the claimed second sealing portion (see Figure 4 and 6a). The open end of the first box includes the accommodating portion including a groove formed by the plurality of beads (column 5 lines 34-40). These formed grooves then are formed in the direction of the inner side of the first box.
With respect to claim 21. The rejection of claims 1-2 and 13-14 is repeated here.
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) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAPE (US 7,423,217 B2) in view of KOBAYASHI (US 10,336,211 B2).
Claim 15 is dependent upon claim 1, which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of PAPE. PAPE teaches an electrical housing which houses electrical components (column 4 lines 55-60). Therefore PAPE does not explicitly teach a battery comprising a battery cell accommodated in the accommodating apparatus.
KOBAYASHI teaches a battery pack which includes an upper case, flange, and lower case (abstract). The battery pack includes an upper and lower case and cooperate together to define a sealed battery chamber (column 4 lines 50-57).
At the time the invention as filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to seal the case of the battery pack of KOBAYASHI using the sealing mechanism of PAPE, as PAPE teaches that such a sealing is beneficial in order to prevent the interior from being affected by moisture, thereby protecting it (column 4 lines 55-60).
With respect to claim 16. KOBAYASHI teaches the battery is utilized in an electric vehicle (column 2 lines 65-67).
Claims 17-18 are dependent upon claim 1 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of PAPE. PAPE does not explicitly teach a manufacturing device of a battery. The rejection of claim 16 above further in view of KOBAYASHI is repeated here. Neither PAPE nor KOBAYASHI explicitly teaches a providing apparatus. However, the provided apparatus may be achieved by hand, and is therefore taken to be obvious at the time the invention was filed.
With respect to claim 19. PAPE teaches the sealing by use of the gasket 20 (column 4 lines 55-60).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11 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: PAPE teaches the noted accommodating apparatus. However, PAPE does not teach where the bracket comprises a body and an extension portion, the extension portion extends from the body into the first box in a direction facing away from the second box, and the first sealing piece abuts against the extension portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 05/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 and 12-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of HAAG and YAMACHI have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of PAPE (US 7,423,217 B2).
On pages 8-10 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, Applicant argues that HAAG does not teach that the accommodating portion is a groove provided on a surface of the bracket. These arguments are persuasive. However, new grounds of rejection are made in view of PAPE.
PAPE teaches as seen in Fig. 6a teaches a first box 12, a second box 18, a bracket 20, a first sealing piece 40, a second sealing piece 102, and an accommodating portion with a groove formed between beads 64 of the bracket 20.
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 JONATHAN G JELSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 4:00 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights