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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on July 6, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Applicant disagrees that searching both species presents a serious search and/or examination burden.
This is not found persuasive because, as set forth in the Requirement for Restriction, the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries), and the inventions have acquired an examination burden that includes the effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, normally require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional invention examined. Concurrent examination of multiple inventions would thus typically involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II-III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 6, 2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: WELDING SYSTEM FOR A BATTERY CASING.
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.
Claims 3 and 5 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.
The term “substantially” in Claims 3 and 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret each of the claims to recite “an angle equal to 90 degrees (90°)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kim et al. (US PGPub 2017/0237045 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim et al. (US PGPub 2017/0237045 A1), and further in view of Cheong et al. (US PGPub 2024/0243399 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses in Fig. 10 a battery casing (1010, 1020) for a vehicle battery cell (1000) ([0115], [0078]), the battery casing (1010, 1020) comprising:
a first portion (1020) including a first planar portion (1042) and a bottom portion (1043) extending from an end of the first planar portion (1042) ([0117]);
a second portion (1010) coupled to the first portion (1020) and having a second planar portion (1041), a first side portion (1044), and a second side portion (1046) disposed opposite to the first side portion (1044), the first portion (1020) and the second portion (1010) forming a prism including the first planar portion (1042), the second planar portion (1041), the first side portion (1044), the second side portion (1046), and the bottom portion (1043) ([0117]); and
wherein the first portion (1020) and the second portion (1010) are configured to be welded together at (i) a first butt joint extending along the first side portion (1044) to join the first side portion (1044) to the first planar portion (1042) and to the bottom portion (1043) at the first side portion (1044), (ii) a second butt joint extending along the second planar portion (1041) to join the second planar portion (1041) to the bottom portion (1043) at the second planar portion (1041), and (iii) a third butt joint extending along the second side portion (1046) to join the second side portion (1046) to the first planar portion (1042) and to the bottom portion (1043) at the second side portion (1046) ([0076], [0115]-[0117]).
Assuming for the sake of argument that Kim does not disclose wherein the first portion and the second portion are welded together at a first butt joint, a second butt joint, and a third, butt joint, the following teaching is relied upon.
Kim discloses wherein the first portion (1020) and the second portion (1010) are configured to be welded together at (i) a first weld joint extending along the first side portion (1044) to join the first side portion (1044) to the first planar portion (1042) and to the bottom portion (1043) at the first side portion (1044), (ii) a second weld joint extending along the second planar portion (1041) to join the second planar portion (1041) to the bottom portion (1043) at the second planar portion (1041), and (iii) a third weld joint extending along the second side portion (1046) to join the second side portion (1046) to the first planar portion (1042) and to the bottom portion (1043) at the second side portion (1046) ([0076], [0115]-[0117]).
However, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the first weld joint, the second weld joint, and the third weld joint are a first butt joint, a second butt joint, and a third butt joint, respectively.
Cheong teaches in Fig. 1 a battery casing comprising a first portion and a second portion configured to be welded together at a weld joint (300), wherein the weld joint (300) may be a butt joint ([0048], [0068]-[0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to weld the first and second portions of Kim together such that the first, second, and third weld joints are a first butt joint, a second butt joint, and a third butt joint, respectively, as taught by Cheong, as such is a known weld joint in the art and therefore the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully couple the first and second portions together by welding, as desired by Kim.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim/modified Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the bottom portion (1043 of Kim) is integrally formed with the first planar portion (1042 of Kim) (Fig. 10, [0115]-[0117] of Kim).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim/modified Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the bottom portion (1043 of Kim) extends from the first planar portion (1042 of Kim) at an angle equal to 90 degrees (90°) (Fig. 10, [0115]-[0117] of Kim).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim/modified Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the first side portion (1044 of Kim) and the second side portion (1046 of Kim) are integrally formed with the second planar portion (1041 of Kim) (Fig. 10, [0115]-[0117] of Kim).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim/modified Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the first side portion (1044 of Kim) and the second side portion (1046 of Kim) extend from the second planar portion (1041 of Kim) at an angle equal to 90 degrees (90°) (Fig. 10, [0115]-[0117] of Kim).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US PGPub 2017/0237045 A1) or Kim et al. (US PGPub 2017/0237045 A1) in view of Cheong et al. (US PGPub 2024/0243399 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakurai (US PGPub 2022/0247017 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim/modified Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the first portion (1020 of Kim) and the second portion (1010 of Kim) are comprised of a metal ([0076] of Kim, e.g. welded together).
However, Kim/modified Kim does not disclose wherein the first portion and the second portion are comprised of one or more of aluminum or steel.
Sakurai teaches wherein a battery casing may be made of aluminum in order to be lightweight, have good thermal conductivity, and have appropriate rigidity ([0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the first and second portions of Kim/modified Kim to be made of aluminum, as taught by Sakurai, in order to form a battery casing that is lightweight, has good thermal conductivity, and has appropriate rigidity.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US PGPub 2017/0237045 A1) or Kim et al. (US PGPub 2017/0237045 A1) in view of Cheong et al. (US PGPub 2024/0243399 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoneda et al. (EP 2290728 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim/modified Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the intended use of the vehicle battery cell (1000 of Kim) is not particularly limited ([0078] of Kim). For example, Kim/modified Kim discloses wherein a plurality of the vehicle battery cells (1000) may be used in vehicle ([0078] of Kim).
However, Kim/modified Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle incorporates a rechargeable energy storage system that includes a plurality of rows and columns of the battery cell casing.
Yoneda teaches a vehicle that incorporates a rechargeable energy storage system that includes a plurality of rows and columns of battery cells in order to increase output voltage and/or output current of the rechargeable energy storage system for the vehicle ([0001]-[0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a plurality of the vehicle battery cells of Kim/modified Kim in a vehicle, as disclosed by Kim/modified Kim, such that the vehicle incorporates a rechargeable energy storage system that includes a plurality of rows and columns of the battery casing of Kim/modified Kim, as taught by Yoneda, in order to increase output voltage and/or output current of the rechargeable energy storage system for the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY WYLUDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 AM - 3 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, 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.
/KIMBERLY WYLUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights