DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1-10 and 13-20) in the reply filed on 5/26/2026 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)). Claims 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species 2 and 3, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted December 3, 2024, has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Drawings
5. The drawings are objected to because the instant disclosure refers to a Figure 13E (see objection to specficition, below) but there is no Figure 13E. It is unclear if there should be one. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
6. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: para 0055 recites “In FIG. 13E, a trimming operation is optionally performed to remove uneven edges or other materials after ironing.” but there is no Fig. 13E in the drawings. If a new figure is added to the drawings, please ensure that no new matter is introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claims 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
8. Claim 1 recites “flanging of one or more sides of the N 2D blanks into the 3D enclosure body” but the limitation “the 3D enclosure body” is unclear because each 2D blank corresponds with a 3D enclosure body while the claim only assigns one 3D enclosure body to the “N 2D blanks”. In the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation is interpreted as “flanging of one or more sides of the N 2D blanks into respective corresponding 3D enclosure bodies”. Claims 3, 5-9 also recite “the 3D enclosure body and should be amended similarly. Claims 2, 4, 10, and 13 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
9. Claim 3 recites “wherein the N 2D blanks further include a lid” but this limitation is indefinite. That is, it is unclear how multiple blanks can include just one lid. In the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the N 2D blanks each further include a lid”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claim(s) 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kuno JP2012-133913.
Regarding Claims 14 and 17, Kuno discloses a method for manufacturing an enclosure comprising providing a two-dimensional (2D) blank 1 from a metal sheet (steel, stainless steel SUS30, steel, or aluminum, paras 0044 and 0062, meeting Claim 17) corresponding to a three dimensional (3D) enclosed body (battery housing) 10 and a lid (top cover) at least partially attached to the 3D enclosure body 10 (para 0033), at least one of bending, folding, and flanging of one or more sides of the 2D blank into the 3D enclosure body 10 and joining two or more sides 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D of the 3D enclosure body 1 using laser welding (paras 0044-0056, Examples 1 and 2, “blanking” followed by “bending and welding” and “laser welding”), arranging a battery cell stack in the 3D enclosure body 10 (inserting a power generation/battery element) and joining at least one side of the lid to the 3D enclosure body 10 (para 0033, lid is joined to the housing opening to seal it, and the skilled artisan would understand that sealing would require joining all sides of the lid to 10) (see entire disclosure and especially paras 0015-0018, 0023-0034, 0044-0056, and 0080-0085, Examples 1 and 2; and all Figs).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
11. Claim 1, 5-6, 9-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuno JP2012-133913 in view of “Sheet Metal Enclosure Fabrication” NPL (https://www.kdmsteel.com/sheet-metal-enclosure-fabrication-process/).
Regarding Claims 1, 9-10, and 13, Kuno discloses a method for manufacturing an enclosure comprising designing a two-dimensional (2D) blank 1 from a metal sheet (steel, stainless steel SUS30, steel, or aluminum, paras 0044 and 0062, meeting Claim 13) corresponding to a three dimensional (3D) enclosed body (battery housing) 10 (blank has inherently been designed so that it has the shape shown in the figures for use as a battery container i.e. 3D enclosed body, 0023-0025), at least one of bending, folding, and flanging of one or more sides of the 2D blank into the 3D enclosure body and joining two or more aligned, mated, complementary first and second flanges (sides) 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D of the 3D enclosure body 1 using laser welding (paras 0044-0056, Examples 1 and 2, “blanking” followed by “bending” followed by joining or “laser welding”) (meeting Claims 9-10), (see entire disclosure and especially paras 0015-0018, 0023-0034, 0044-0056, and 0080-0085, Examples 1 and 2; and all Figs). Kuno does not specifically recite that the 2D blank is designed (although it is necessarily so) or that N of 2D blanks are laid out on a metal sheet where N is an integer greater than one, followed by separation of the N blanks from the metal sheet, followed by the bending/folding/flanging of one or more sides of the N 2D blanks into the 2D enclosure body and joining sides of the 3D enclosure body 10. However, in a similar field of endeavor of forming electronic component housing from sheet metal via a blanking/welding process, “Sheet Metal Enclosure Fabrication” discloses a method for manufacturing an enclosure comprising designing a two dimensional (2D) blank (“blanking punch”, p. 8, line 4) corresponding to a three dimensional (3D) electronics enclosure body (“the die has a cutout with the shape of the required metal enclosure part… Above the sheet metal is the blanking punch that is a tool have the shape of the required enclosure part”, p. 8, lines 4-10), laying out N of the 2D blanks on a metal sheet where N is an integer greater than 1 (the figure on p. 8 shows N=4 blanks), separating the N 2D blanks from the metal sheet (when the blanking punch thumps the material, the sheet metal within the clearance speedily bends and then separates. The sheared blank from the sheet metal drops freely into the cavity in the die.”) and that further shaping can be then carried out (“cutting pieces having simple geometries which will undergo extra shaping during subsequent sheet metal enclosure fabrication processes”, p. 8, lines 2-3) (generally see pp 8-9). “Sheet Metal Enclosure Fabrication” further teaches that this blanking method is exceptionally quick, and that additionally, the addition of fine blanking processes can be further implemented to produce smoother edges, minimal burrs, better flatness, and tight tolerance, and minimizes additional processing needs, p. 9, lines 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the method of Kuno such that designed N 2D blanks are laid out on a metal sheet where N is an integer greater than one and separating the 2D blanks from the metal sheet (followed by further fabrication processes) because “Sheet Metal Enclosure Fabrication” teaches that this blanking method is exceptionally quick, and that additionally, the addition of fine blanking processes can be further implemented to produce smoother edges, minimal burrs, better flatness, and tight tolerance, and minimizes additional processing needs.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Kuno discloses wherein after joining the plurality of sides of the 3D enclosure body, arranging a battery cell stack in the 3D enclosure body 10 (inserting a power generation/battery element) and joining a lid (top cover) to an opening of the 3D enclosure body (para 0033). Although Kuno does not specify the type of welding, such that laser welding is used (re: Claim 6), Kuno uses laser welding for the other welding that is carried out in the method and so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use laser welding to attach the lid of Kuno to the 3D enclosure body of Kuno modified by “Sheet Metal Enclosure Fabrication” because The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
12. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuno JP2012-133913 in view of “Sheet Metal Enclosure Fabrication” NPL (https://www.kdmsteel.com/sheet-metal-enclosure-fabrication-process/), as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Geyer US Patent 2,087,026.
Regarding Claim 2, Kuno modified by “Sheet Metal Enclosure Fabrication” discloses the claimed method as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Modified Kuno fails to specifically disclose wherein the method comprises coating the metal sheet with an insulating layer. However, in the same field of endeavor of for manufacturing a steel battery enclosure, Geyer discloses that a flat sheet metal blank, which is subsequently folded to form the metal battery housing, has an insulating resilient coating which allows for the housing/enclosure to be insulated and protected (see e.g. col 1, lines 9-38; Figs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include in the method of modified Kuno a step of coating the metal sheet blank with a resilient insulating layer because Geyer teaches that such a coating allows for the enclosure to be insulated/protected. Although Kuno modified by “Sheet Metal Enclosure Fabrication” and Geyer does not specifically recite that the metal sheet is coated with the insulating layer, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include this step in the method in order to improve efficiency by coating the whole metal sheet (before laying out the 2D blanks on the metal sheet) since drive for efficiency in time and resources behind the use of N 2D blanks to form the enclosures of modified Kuno would motivate the skilled artisan to use a single coating step (coating the metal sheet rather than individual blanks). The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
13. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuno JP2012-133913 in view of “Sheet Metal Enclosure Fabrication” NPL (https://www.kdmsteel.com/sheet-metal-enclosure-fabrication-process/), and Geyer US Patent 2,087,026, as applied to Claim 2, and further in view of “Printable Square Box Template” (https://www.thesprucecrafts.com/printable-square-box-template-4083356).
Regarding Claim 3, Kuno modified by “Sheet Metal Enclosure Fabrication” and Geyer teaches the claimed method as described in the rejections of Claims 1 and 2, which are incorporated herein in their entireties. Kuno discloses a top cover that is welded to the battery housing/3D enclosure (para 0034) and makes it clear that minimizing the number of welds in the enclosure is optimal (paras 0033-0035), and discloses arranging a battery cell stack in the 3D enclosure body (para 0033) (power generation element such as secondary battery, which would include battery cells, and if such cells are not specifically disclosed as being arranged in a stack, then stacking the cells would be obvious for space conservation since the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).,) and joining least one edge of the lid (welding) to an opening in the 3D enclosure body (paras 0033-0034) but modified Kuno does not specifically disclose wherein the N 2D blanks further include a lid. However, in a similar field of endeavor of designing an enclosure to be formed via template, “Printable Square Box Template” discloses that an enclosure can be designed to include the lid which would allow the box/enclosure to be formed from a single piece of material which would be folded and joined via tabs/flanges and that the template can be used to form a blank (see clipped portion of reference below).
PNG
media_image1.png
72
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the blank of modified Kuno such that the N 2D blanks further include a lid because “Printable Square Box Template” teaches that a lidded enclosure can be designed as a blank which allows for a simple design. The use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Further, the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
14. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuno JP2012-133913 in view of “Sheet Metal Enclosure Fabrication” NPL (https://www.kdmsteel.com/sheet-metal-enclosure-fabrication-process/), Geyer US Patent 2,087,026, and “Printable Square Box Template” (https://www.thesprucecrafts.com/printable-square-box-template-4083356, as applied to Claim 3, and further in view of Batsen US Patent 6,001,504.
Regarding Claim 4, Kuno modified by “Sheet Metal Enclosure Fabrication”, Geyer, and “Printable Square Box Template” teaches the claimed method as described in the rejections of Claims 1-3, which are incorporated herein in their entireties. Modified Kuno does not specifically disclose wherein the lid includes at least one of a first opening and a second opening (“for a terminal” and “ for a vent being” intended uses not requiring a terminal or a vent). However, in the same field of endeavor of designing a blank for a battery housing, Batsen teaches that a second hole (vent assembly mounting hole) 38 can be punched in the blank over the cover to allow for placement of a vent plug, for example (see Fig 5 and col 3, lines 30-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include an opening (a hole) in the lid of the 2D blanks of modified Kuno because Batsen teaches that this provides a way to mount a vent assembly, for example. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
15. Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuno JP2012-133913 in view of “Sheet Metal Enclosure Fabrication” NPL (https://www.kdmsteel.com/sheet-metal-enclosure-fabrication-process/), as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Fortmeier US PG Publication 2019/0070651.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Kuno modified by “Sheet Metal Enclosure Fabrication teaches the claimed method as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Modified Kuno discloses that at least one of the plurality of sides of the 3D enclosure body is solid-state joined in that the sides are joined using laser welding (see paras 0030-0033) (meeting Claim 8) but modified Kuno does not specifically disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of sides of the 3D enclosure body is ironed. However, in the same field of endeavor of forming an enclosure body (hollow chamber) from a sheet metal blank, Fortmeier discloses wherein a sheet metal blank can formed into the hollow chamber via processing steps including ironing and laser welding (see e.g. paras 0053-0054) and while Fortmeier does not specifically provide a benefit to using these techniques, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include ironing in a same method of forming an enclosure such as in modified Kuno via a sheet metal blank using laser welding because Fortmeier teaches these elements are known to be useful together in a similar process and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
16. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuno JP2012-133913, as applied to Claim 14, and further in view of Geyer US Patent 2,087,026.
Regarding Claim 15, Kuno discloses the claimed method as described in the rejection of Claim 14, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Kuno fails to specifically disclose wherein the method comprises coating the 2D blank with an insulating layer. However, in the same field of endeavor of for manufacturing a steel battery enclosure, Geyer discloses that a flat sheet metal blank, which is subsequently folded to form the metal battery housing, has an insulating resilient coating which allows for the housing/enclosure to be insulated and protected (see e.g. col 1, lines 9-38; Figs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include in the method of modified Kuno a step of coating the 2D blank with a resilient insulating layer because Geyer teaches that such a coating allows for the enclosure to be insulated/protected.
17. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuno JP2012-133913, as applied to Claim 14, and further in view of Batsen US Patent 6,001,504.
Regarding Claim 16, Kuno teaches the claimed method as described in the rejections of Claim 14, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Kuno discloses wherein at least one edge of the lid is joined to the 3D enclosure body using welding (para 0033). Although Kuno does not specify the type of welding, such that laser welding is used (re: Claim 6), Kuno uses laser welding for the other welding that is carried out in the method (para 0030) and so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use laser welding to attach the lid of Kuno to the 3D enclosure body of Kuno because the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Kuno does not specifically disclose wherein the lid includes at least one of a first opening and a second opening (“for a terminal” and “for a vent” being intended uses not requiring a terminal or a vent). However, in the same field of endeavor of designing a blank for a battery housing, Batsen teaches that a second hole (vent assembly mounting hole) 38 can be punched in the blank over the cover to allow for placement of a vent plug, for example (see Fig 5 and col 3, lines 30-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include an opening (a hole) in the lid of Kuno because Batsen teaches that this provides a way to mount a vent assembly, for example. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
18. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuno JP2012-133913 in view of Fortmeier US PG Publication 2019/0070651.
Regarding Claim 18, Kuno discloses a method for manufacturing an enclosure comprising providing a two-dimensional (2D) blank 1 corresponding to a three dimensional (3D) enclosed body (battery housing) 10, joining two or more aligned, mated, complementary first and second flanges (sides) 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D of the 3D enclosure body 1 using laser welding (paras 0044-0056, Examples 1 and 2, “blanking” followed by “bending” followed by joining or “laser welding”) into the 3D enclosure body, joining edges of the 3D enclosure body using solid state joining, e.g. laser welding, arranging a battery cell stack in the 3D enclosure body 10 (inserting a power generation/battery element) and joining a lid to the 3D enclosure body 10 (para 0033) (see entire disclosure and especially paras 0015-0018, 0023-0034, 0044-0056, and 0080-0085, Examples 1 and 2; and all Figs). Kuno discloses that at edges of the 3D enclosure body are solid-state joined in that the sides are joined using laser welding (see paras 0030-0033) but Kuno does not specifically disclose joining edges of the 3D enclosure body using ironing. However, in the same field of endeavor of forming an enclosure body (hollow chamber) from a sheet metal blank, Fortmeier discloses wherein a sheet metal blank can formed into the hollow chamber via processing steps including ironing and laser welding (see e.g. paras 0053-0054) and while Fortmeier does not specifically provide a benefit to using these techniques, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include ironing in a same method of forming an enclosure such as in Kuno via a sheet metal blank using laser welding because Fortmeier teaches these elements are known to be useful together in a similar process and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
19. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuno JP2012-133913 in view of Fortmeier US PG Publication 2019/0070651, as applied to Claim 18, and further in view of Batsen US Patent 6,001,504.
Regarding Claim, Kuno modified by Fortmeier teaches the claimed method as described in the rejections of Claims 18, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Kuno recites that the lid is joined to the 3D enclosure body 10 via welding but modified Kuno does not specifically disclose wherein the welding is e.g. laser welding or crimping or brazing, and does not disclose wherein the lid includes at least one of a first opening and a second opening (“for a terminal” and “ for a vent being” intended uses not requiring a terminal or a vent). However, with respect to laser welding, Kuno uses laser welding for the other welding that is carried out in the method (as stated and cited above) and so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use laser welding to attach the lid of Kuno to the 3D enclosure body of Kuno modified by Fortmeier because the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Further, with respect to the presence of an opening in the lid, in the same field of endeavor of designing a blank for a battery housing, Batsen teaches that a second hole (vent assembly mounting hole) 38 can be punched in the blank over the cover to allow for placement of a vent plug, for example (see Fig 5 and col 3, lines 30-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include an opening (a hole) in the lid of the 2D blanks of modified Kuno because Batsen teaches that this provides a way to mount a vent assembly, for example. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
20. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuno JP2012-133913 in view of Fortmeier US PG Publication 2019/0070651, as applied to Claim 18, and further in view of Geyer US Patent 2,087,026.
Regarding Claim 20, Kuno modified by Fortmeier discloses the claimed method as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Modified Kuno fails to specifically disclose wherein the method comprises coating the metal sheet with an insulating layer. However, in the same field of endeavor of for manufacturing a steel battery enclosure, Geyer discloses that a flat sheet metal blank, which is subsequently folded to form the metal battery housing, has an insulating resilient coating which allows for the housing/enclosure to be insulated and protected (see e.g. col 1, lines 9-38; Figs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include in the method of modified Kuno a step of coating the 2D blank with a resilient insulating layer because Geyer teaches that such a coating allows for the enclosure to be insulated/protected.
Conclusion
21. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim US PG Publication 2005/0173502 discloses a box template forming a box by folding a single sheet to include e.g. lid panels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights