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 of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 06/17/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). In the response, claim 10 is currently withdrawn. This is considered to be a typo as the claim was positively elected in the response and belongs to the elected group. The claim will be treated, below, and examiner recommends changing the status identifier. If the withdrawal is correct, the rejection will be removed in the next action. Clarification is requested. See MPEP 714 II. C. Amendments to the Claims (A) Status Identifiers and (B) Markings to Show the Changes.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobi et al (WO 2022/223666).
Regarding claim 1, Dobi teaches a battery cell 10 having an inner casing and being inserted into an outer casing as shown in figure 1b (pg 4, lines 270pg 5, line 4). Figures 1a and 4 shows the outer casing having a top plate 13 and a bottom plate 12. The battery cell is an electrochemical cell (pg 3, lines 13-15).
Dobi does not explicitly teach the battery cell stack, as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize a battery cell stack including anode electrodes, cathode electrodes, and separators insofar as that is a standard battery cell stack.
Regarding claim 2, Dobi teaches multiple ridges in the shape of elongated protrusions are provided along each longer side wall 11a and 11b (pg 3, lines 19-25 and figure 1a). The protrusions are considered to be the instantly claimed stiffening portions.
Regarding claim 3, Dobi teaches multiple ridges in the shape of elongated protrusions are provided along each longer side wall 11a and 11b (pg 3, lines 19-25 and figure 1a).
Dobi does not explicitly teach the pattern of the ridges on the second side (namely 11b) to have a different pattern than that of the first side (namely 11a).
Dobi teaches the ridges are configured to mechanically interlock to an adjacently arranged battery cell. Figures 2-4 show an exemplified dove-tailed configuration with adjacent cells having different patterns in order to interlock (pg 3, lines 19-25 and figures 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize the different patterns on sides 11a and 11b of a single cell rather than different patterns on adjacent cells as a matter of design choice dependent upon the specific interlocking design desired.
Regarding claim 4, Dobi teaches the ridges are configured to mechanically interlock to an adjacently arranged battery cell. Figures 2-4 show an exemplified dove-tailed configuration (pg 3, lines 19-25 and figures 2-4).
Regarding claim 5, Dobi teaches multiple ridges in the shape of elongated protrusions are provided along each longer side wall 11a and 11b (pg 3, lines 19-25 and figure 1a), as discussed above. The protrusions are considered to be the instantly claimed stiffening portions.
Dobi does not explicitly teach stiffening portions comprising dimples or beads, as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize any shape of the stiffening portion dependent upon design choice.
Regarding claim 6, Dobi teaches multiple ridges in the shape of elongated protrusions are provided along each longer side wall 11a and 11b (pg 3, lines 19-25 and figure 1a), as discussed above. The protrusions are considered to be the instantly claimed stiffening portions.
Dobi does not explicitly teach stiffening portions comprising dimples or beads, as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize any shape of the stiffening portion dependent upon design choice.
Regarding claim 7, Dobi teaches using a thermally conductive potting material between the battery cells (pg 6, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 8, Dobi teaches a battery cell 10 having an inner casing and being inserted into an outer casing as shown in figure 1b (pg 4, lines 270pg 5, line 4). The battery cell having an inner casing is shown to have a top and bottom closure which is considered to constitute the instantly claimed second lid and bottom portion.
Regarding claim 9, Dobi teaches the battery as discussed above.
Dobi does not explicitly teach the lid or bottom portion to include a vent.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize a vent in the top or bottom to release gas or pressure as is extremely well known in the art and would have been well within the purview of an ordinarily skilled artisan without undue experimentation and with an extremely reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Dobi teaches a battery pack in figure 4 including a plurality of cells, as discussed above. Dobi teaches using a thermally conductive potting material between the battery cells to improve thermal conductivity and enhance cooling of the battery cells when using a cooling plate which may be positioned adjacent to the bottom plate of the battery cells (pg 6, lines 20-25).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/SARAH A. SLIFKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759 August 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights