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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 5 is cancelled.
Claims 1-4, and 6-21 are rejected.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slagle et al. (US 20230102316 A1, “Slagle”) in view of Kerkamm et al. (DE 102014226260 A1, “Kerkamm”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 1, Slagle discloses an enclosure for a prismatic battery cell (see abstract “laminated pouch surrounding a frame which encloses solid-state electrochemical cells and electrochemical stacks”; see [0229] “prismatic battery cell” & “stack of cells” & “in a laminated pouch”), comprising: first side surfaces; second side surfaces connected between the first side surfaces (see FIG. 1 “sides 106” & “sides 104”); a top surface connected between the first side surfaces and the second side surfaces (see FIG. 1 “101 top major surface”); and a bottom surface connected between the first side surface and the second side surfaces (see FIG. 1 “bottom major surface 102”), wherein the first side surfaces, the second side surfaces, the top surface and the bottom surface are configured to receive a battery cell stack (see [0021] “cell stack” & “stack is sealed under vacuum in cans, pouches, and other types of sealed housings”). Slagle discloses while limiting expansion in second and third directions transverse to the first direction (see [0043] “expansion and contraction” & “this expansion is primarily in the direction transverse to the order in which a cell’s cathode, electrolyte, and anode are layered”; see [0219] “flexible layered polymer” & “upper and lower laminate portions 1210, 1250”) and wherein the second side surfaces, the top surface, and the bottom surface comprise first portions and second portions (see [0080] “top laminate portion 2010 and bottom laminate portion 2050 are sealed together so as to form around the assembled frame” which reads on first portions; see [0108] “frame portions 5140”; see FIG. 5I which reads on second portions), and the first portions are softened relative to the second portions without a change in thickness of the second side surfaces, the top surface, and the bottom surface (see [0141] “laminate pouch pieces” & “polymer layer” which reads on first portions; see [0141] “a bonded seal may be made by an ultrasonic welding method, or by laser welding, or by adhesive, or by external clamping, or by stitching” & a skilled artisan would find it obvious ultrasonic welding does not change a thickness).
Slagle does not explicitly disclose wherein the second side surfaces, the top surface and the bottom surface expand/contract to allow guided expansion/contraction of the enclosure in a first direction.
Kerkamm teaches “battery cell housing for receiving an electrode assembly of a battery cell” & “bottom region (22), side walls (24)” & “closing lid (26)” & “battery cell housing (20) due to the wavy or folded structure (28) elastically performs a volume change” which reads on expand/contract (see abstract); see [0026] “the bottom surface 22, at least one side wall 24 or the lid 26 is at least partially provided with a structure 28 which shows a corrugated or folded configuration”; see FIG. 4 “28” & “32”. Kerkamm teaches “the corrugated or folded structure 28 is preferably designed in such a way that the battery cell housing 20 can change its volume reversibly or elastically when internal or external pressure is applied” (see [0027]).
Slagle and Kerkamm are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery cell housing (see Kerkamm abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wavy structure as suggested by Kerkamm into the enclosure of Slagle because doing so is preferable to allow for the housing to change its volume as suggested by Kerkamm (see [0027]).
Regarding claim 2, Slagle discloses the enclosure of claim 1. Slagle does not explicitly disclose wherein the second side surfaces, the top surface, and the bottom surface comprise corrugations.
Kerkamm teaches corrugated surfaces (see [0026] “the bottom surface 22, at least one side wall 24 or the lid 26 is at least partially provided with a structure 28 which shows a corrugated or folded configuration”; see FIG. 4 describes “28” & “32”). Kerkamm teaches “the corrugated or folded structure 28 is preferably designed in such a way that the battery cell housing 20 can change its volume reversibly or elastically when internal or external pressure is applied” (see [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate corrugated surfaces as suggested by Kerkamm into the enclosure of Slagle because doing so is preferable to allow for the housing to change its volume as suggested by Kerkamm (see [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, Slagle discloses the enclosure of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the second side surfaces, the top surface, and the bottom surface of the enclosure are made of a first material that is less stiff than a second material of the first side surfaces (see [0069] “the top major surface 101 and/or the bottom major surface 102 of the electrochemical stack is attached to a surface on the frame by way of a pressure-sensitive adhesive (PSA) material” & “PSA materials may include an elastomer” which reads on less stiff material).
Regarding claim 4, Slagle discloses the enclosure of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the second side surfaces, the top surface, and the bottom surface of the enclosure are made of a first material having a first thickness (see FIG. 1 & upon assembly would have a thickness of each surface). Slagle does not explicitly disclose wherein the first side surfaces are made of the first material and have a second thickness greater than the first thickness.
Kerkamm teaches corrugated surface (see [0026] & FIG. 4 “28” & “32”). Kerkamm teaches “the corrugated or folded structure 28 is preferably designed in such a way that the battery cell housing 20 can change its volume reversibly or elastically when internal or external pressure is applied” (see [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate corrugated surfaces as suggested by Kerkamm into the enclosure of Slagle because doing so is preferable to allow for the housing to change its volume as suggested by Kerkamm (see [0027]). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to add the corrugated surface as suggested by Kerkamm and doing so would increase the thickness of the surface.
Regarding claim 6, Slagle discloses the enclosure of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the first portions of the second side surfaces, the top surface, and the bottom surface are softened using laser heating (see [0141] “laser welding” which reads on laser heating).
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 6 “hardened and softened using at least one of laser and infrared heating”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process). See MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 7, Slagle discloses the enclosure of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the first portions of the second side surfaces, the top surface, and the bottom surface are softened using ultrasonic vibration (see [0141] “laminated pouch has a bonded seal” & “ultrasonic welding” which reads on ultrasonic vibration).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slagle et al. (US 20230102316 A1, “Slagle”) in view of Kerkamm et al. (DE 102014226260 A1, “Kerkamm”) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Fischer et al. (US 20180151856 A1, “Fischer”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 8, Slagle discloses the enclosure of claim 2, and discloses “less than perfect vacuum may be provided within the laminated pouch” (see [0095]). Slagle does not explicitly disclose wherein the first side surfaces are curved one of inwardly and outwardly.
Fischer teaches curved casing wall (see [0006] “low-cost casing with built-in mechanical compliance that can provide the necessary mechanical preloaded forces to the electrode stack after battery assembly may be provided by shaping at least one part of the casing wall in a concave manner (so that it arcs in toward the cell stack) before assembly”).
Slagle and Fischer are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery housing (see Fischer abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate concave casing, as suggested by Fischer (see [0006]) into the enclosure of Slagle because doing so “provides the necessary mechanical preloaded forces to the electrode stack after battery assembly” as suggested by Fischer (see [0006]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slagle et al. (US 20230102316 A1, “Slagle”) in view of Kerkamm et al. (DE 102014226260 A1, “Kerkamm”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Palanchon et al. (US 20110189525 A1, “Palanchon”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 9, Slagle discloses the enclosure of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein: the second side surfaces, the top surface, and the bottom surface comprise groove portions and non-grooved portions, wherein the grooved portions are thinner than the non-grooved portions.
Palanchon teaches grooved portions (see [0037] “interlocks” & “grooves” & “protrusion 78” & “the fin plates used to implement heat exchanger 18 may include metallurgical or mechanical interlocks with each other or with the surfaces of battery modules 14 in order to reduce relative movement between the plates and the battery modules and mitigate against abrasion”; see FIG. 11A). Palanchon teaches battery modules housing (see [0005]).
Slagle and Palanchon are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery modules housing (see [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate grooved portions, as suggested by Palanchon (see [0037]) into the enclosure of Slagle because doing so “reduce[s] relative movement between the plates and the battery modules” as suggested by Palanchon (see [0037]).
Claim 10-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slagle et al. (US 20230102316 A1, “Slagle”) in view of Kerkamm et al. (DE 102014226260 A1, “Kerkamm”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeong et al. (US 20210265685 A1, “Jeong”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 10, Slagle discloses the enclosure of claim 1. Slagle does not explicitly disclose further comprising one or more strengthening beads arranged on the first side surfaces.
Jeong teaches “hook parts 211 and 212” in FIG. 5 & [0059] “so that they can fix and support the upper and lower ends of the elastic members”. Jeong teaches a battery module with a frame member (see abstract).
Slagle and Jeong are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery module with a frame member (see Jeong abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “211” & “212” as suggested by Jeong (see FIG. 5 & [0059]) into the enclosure of Slagle because doing so “fix[es] and support[s] the upper and lower ends of the elastic members”, as suggested by Jeong (see FIG. 5 & [0059]).
Regarding claim 11 and claim 12, Slagle discloses the enclosure of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising an offset surface arranged on the first side surfaces, wherein the offset surface comprises more than 50% of an area of the first side surfaces, as required by claim 11 nor further comprising an offset surface arranged on the first side surfaces, wherein the offset surface comprises more than 50% of an area of the first side surfaces, as required by claim 12.
Jeong teaches offset surface (see FIG. 5 “230” which reads on offset surface & [0050] “230” & “may be formed so as to be bent in an inner direction of the frame member 200 on the vertical cross section of the frame member 200”; see [0049] “230 and 240 support the battery cell stack”; see [0052] “230 and 240 are formed so as to be bent in the inner direction of the frame member 200, so that the assembly tolerance absorption and swelling absorption functions can be performed only by the curved surface parts 230 and 240 that are bent, without a separate configuration such as a conventional compression pad. By making it possible to absorb the assembly tolerance and swelling of the battery cell using both side surfaces of the frame member provided to protect the existing battery cell stack in this way, it became possible to absorb an assembling tolerance and a swelling in a more simple and efficient manner.”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “230” which reads on offset surface, as suggested by Jeong (see [0050] & FIG. 5 & [0052]) into the enclosure of Slagle because doing so “absorb[s] the assembly tolerance and swelling of the battery cell using both side surfaces of the frame member provided to protect the existing battery cell stack in this way” & doing so absorb[s] an assembling tolerance and a swelling in a more simple and efficient manner”, as suggested by Jeong (see [0052]).
Regarding claim 13, Slagle discloses an enclosure for a prismatic battery cell (see abstract “laminated pouch surrounding a frame which encloses solid-state electrochemical cells and electrochemical stacks” which reads on enclosure for a battery cell; see [0229] “prismatic battery cell” & “stack of cells” & “in a laminated pouch”), comprising: first side surfaces; second side surfaces connected between the first side surfaces (see FIG. 1 “sides 106” & “sides 104”); a top surface connected between the first side surfaces and the second side surfaces (see FIG. 1 “101 top major surface”); and a bottom surface connected between the first side surfaces and the second side surfaces (see FIG. 1 “bottom major surface 102”), wherein the enclosure is configured to receive a battery cell stack (see [0021] “cell stack” & “stack is sealed under vacuum in cans, pouches, and other types of sealed housings” & see abstract). Slagle discloses while limiting expansion in second and third directions transverse to the first direction (see [0043] “expansion and contraction” & “this expansion is primarily in the direction transverse to the order in which a cell’s cathode, electrolyte, and anode are layered”; see [0219] “flexible layered polymer” & “upper and lower laminate portions 1210, 1250”), and wherein the second side surfaces, the top surface, and the bottom surface comprise first portions and second portions (see [0080] “top laminate portion 2010 and bottom laminate portion 2050 are sealed together so as to form around the assembled frame” which reads on first portions; see [0108] “frame portions 5140”; see FIG. 5I which reads on second portions), and the first portions are softened relative to the second portions without a change in thickness of the second side surfaces, the top surface, and the bottom surface (see [0141] “laminate pouch pieces” & “polymer layer” which reads on first portions; see [0141] “a bonded seal may be made by an ultrasonic welding method, or by laser welding, or by adhesive, or by external clamping, or by stitching” & a skilled artisan would find it obvious ultrasonic welding does not change a thickness). Slagle does not explicitly disclose wherein the second side surfaces, the top surface and the bottom surface expand to allow guided expansion/contraction of the enclosure in a first direction.
Kerkamm teaches “battery cell housing for receiving an electrode assembly of a battery cell” & “bottom region (22), side walls (24)” & “closing lid (26)” & “battery cell housing (20) due to the wavy or folded structure (28) elastically performs a volume change” which reads on expand/contract (see abstract); see [0026] “the bottom surface 22, at least one side wall 24 or the lid 26 is at least partially provided with a structure 28 which shows a corrugated or folded configuration”; see FIG. 4 “28” & “32”. Kerkamm teaches “the corrugated or folded structure 28 is preferably designed in such a way that the battery cell housing 20 can change its volume reversibly or elastically when internal or external pressure is applied” (see [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wavy structure as suggested by Kerkamm into the enclosure of Slagle because doing so is preferable to allow for the housing to change its volume as suggested by Kerkamm (see [0027]).
Slagle does not explicitly disclose wherein the first side surfaces include at least one of: a plurality of stiffening beads.
Jeong teaches “hook parts 211 and 212” in FIG. 5 & [0059] “so that they can fix and support the upper and lower ends of the elastic members”. Jeong teaches a battery module with a frame member (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “211” & “212” as suggested by Jeong (see FIG. 5 & [0059]) into the enclosure of Slagle because doing so “fix[es] and support[s] the upper and lower ends of the elastic members”, as suggested by Jeong (see FIG. 5 & [0059]).
Slagle does not explicitly disclose and an offset surface comprising greater than 50% of an area of the first side surfaces.
Jeong teaches offset surface (see FIG. 5 “230” which reads on offset surface & [0050] “230” & “may be formed so as to be bent in an inner direction of the frame member 200 on the vertical cross section of the frame member 200”; see [0049] “230 and 240 support the battery cell stack”; see [0052] “230 and 240 are formed so as to be bent in the inner direction of the frame member 200, so that the assembly tolerance absorption and swelling absorption functions can be performed only by the curved surface parts 230 and 240 that are bent, without a separate configuration such as a conventional compression pad. By making it possible to absorb the assembly tolerance and swelling of the battery cell using both side surfaces of the frame member provided to protect the existing battery cell stack in this way, it became possible to absorb an assembling tolerance and a swelling in a more simple and efficient manner.”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “230” which reads on offset surface, as suggested by Jeong (see [0050] & FIG. 5 & [0052]) into the enclosure of Slagle because doing so “absorb[s] the assembly tolerance and swelling of the battery cell using both side surfaces of the frame member provided to protect the existing battery cell stack in this way” & doing so absorb[s] an assembling tolerance and a swelling in a more simple and efficient manner”, as suggested by Jeong (see [0052]).
Regarding claim 14, Slagle discloses the enclosure of claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second side surfaces, the top surface, and the bottom surface comprise corrugations.
Kerkamm teaches corrugated surfaces (see [0026] “the bottom surface 22, at least one side wall 24 or the lid 26 is at least partially provided with a structure 28 which shows a corrugated or folded configuration”; see FIG. 4 describes “28” & “32”). Kerkamm teaches “the corrugated or folded structure 28 is preferably designed in such a way that the battery cell housing 20 can change its volume reversibly or elastically when internal or external pressure is applied” (see [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate corrugated surfaces as suggested by Kerkamm into the enclosure of Slagle because doing so is preferable to allow for the housing to change its volume as suggested by Kerkamm (see [0027]).
Regarding claim 15, Slagle discloses the enclosure of claim 13 and further discloses wherein the second side surfaces, the top surface, and the bottom surface of the enclosure are made of a first material that is less stiff than a second material of the first side surfaces (see [0069] “top major surface 101 and/or the bottom major surface 102 of the electrochemical stack is attached to a surface on the frame by way of a pressure-sensitive adhesive (PSA) material” & “PSA materials may include an elastomer” which reads on less stiff material).
Regarding claim 16, Slagle discloses the enclosure of claim 13 and further discloses wherein the second side surfaces, the top surface, and the bottom surface of the enclosure are made of a first material having a first thickness (see FIG. 1 & upon assembly would have a thickness of each surface). Slagle does not explicitly disclose wherein the first side surfaces are made of the first material and have a second thickness greater than the first thickness.
Kerkamm teaches corrugated surface (see [0026] & FIG. 4 “28” & “32”). Kerkamm teaches “the corrugated or folded structure 28 is preferably designed in such a way that the battery cell housing 20 can change its volume reversibly or elastically when internal or external pressure is applied” (see [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate corrugated surfaces as suggested by Kerkamm into the enclosure of Slagle because doing so is preferable to allow for the housing to change its volume as suggested by Kerkamm (see [0027]). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to add the corrugated surface as suggested by Kerkamm and doing so would increase the thickness of the surface.
Regarding claim 17, Slagle discloses the enclosure of claim 13 and further discloses wherein the first portions are softened relative to the second portions using ultrasonic vibration (see [0141] “a bonded seal may be made by an ultrasonic welding method, or by laser welding, or by adhesive, or by external clamping, or by stitching” & ultrasonic welding reads on ultrasonic vibration).
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 17 “softened” & “using at least one of laser heating, infrared heating, and ultrasonic vibration”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process). See MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 20, Slagle discloses the enclosure of claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of stiffening are formed in the first side surfaces.
Jeong teaches “hook parts 211 and 212” in FIG. 5 & [0059] “so that they can fix and support the upper and lower ends of the elastic members”. Jeong teaches a battery module with a frame member (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “211” & “212” as suggested by Jeong (see FIG. 5 & [0059]) into the enclosure of Slagle because doing so “fix[es] and support[s] the upper and lower ends of the elastic members”, as suggested by Jeong (see FIG. 5 & [0059]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slagle et al. (US 20230102316 A1, “Slagle”) and Kerkamm et al. (DE 102014226260 A1, “Kerkamm”) and Jeong et al. (US 20210265685 A1, “Jeong”) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Fischer et al. (US 20180151856 A1, “Fischer”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 18, Slagle discloses the enclosure of claim 13, and discloses “less than perfect vacuum may be provided within the laminated pouch” (see [0095]). Slagle does not explicitly disclose wherein the first side surfaces are curved one of inwardly and outwardly.
Fischer teaches curved casing wall (see [0006] “low-cost casing with built-in mechanical compliance that can provide the necessary mechanical preloaded forces to the electrode stack after battery assembly may be provided by shaping at least one part of the casing wall in a concave manner (so that it arcs in toward the cell stack) before assembly”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate concave casing, as suggested by Fischer (see [0006]) into the enclosure of Slagle because doing so “provides the necessary mechanical preloaded forces to the electrode stack after battery assembly” as suggested by Fischer (see [0006]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slagle et al. (US 20230102316 A1, “Slagle”) and Kerkamm et al. (DE 102014226260 A1, “Kerkamm”) and Jeong et al. (US 20210265685 A1, “Jeong”) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Palanchon et al. (US 20110189525 A1, “Palanchon”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 19, Slagle discloses the enclosure of claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose wherein: the second side surfaces, the top surface, and the bottom surface comprise groove portions and non-grooved portions, wherein the grooved portions are thinner than the non-grooved portions.
Palanchon teaches grooved portions (see [0037] “interlocks” & “grooves” & “protrusion 78” & “the fin plates used to implement heat exchanger 18 may include metallurgical or mechanical interlocks with each other or with the surfaces of battery modules 14 in order to reduce relative movement between the plates and the battery modules and mitigate against abrasion”; see FIG. 11A). Palanchon teaches battery modules housing (see [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate grooved portions, as suggested by Palanchon (see [0037]) into the enclosure of Slagle because doing so “reduce[s] relative movement between the plates and the battery modules” as suggested by Palanchon (see [0037]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slagle et al. (US 20230102316 A1, “Slagle”) in view of Kerkamm et al. (DE 102014226260 A1, “Kerkamm”) and Jeong et al. (US 20210265685 A1, “Jeong”) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Laderer et al. (US 20140079982 A1, “Laderer”).
Regarding claim 21, Slagle discloses the enclosure of claim 20 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of stiffening beads are annular.
Laderer teaches stiffening beads are annular (see [0089] “The reinforcing channels 144 preferably an annular enclosed configuration”).
Slagle and Laderer are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely cover for an electrochemical device (see Laderer title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate annular reinforcing channel 144, as suggested by Laderer (see [0089]) into the enclosure of Slagle because doing so is preferable, as suggested by Laderer (see [0089]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments on P9-P14 regarding “there is no suggestion in Slagle that any portion … has one area that is softened relative to another area of that same portion” & “Slagle fails to disclose or suggest…the first portions of the second side surfaces, the top surface, and the bottom surface are softened relative to the second portions of the second side surfaces, the top surface, and the bottom surface, without a change in thickness of the second side surfaces, the top surface, and the bottom surface, as recited by amended claim 1” are unpersuasive because Slagle discloses ultrasonic welding method (see [0141]) & a skilled artisan would find it obvious ultrasonic welding method describes a bonded seal method that does not alter a thickness of the material.
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 SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights