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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received September 18, 2026:
Claim 5 has been canceled as per Applicant’s request. Claim 13 has been added. Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are pending.
The previous objection to claim 7 has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The rejections relying upon 2024/0097256 (Sonobe) and US 2024/0075798 (Yoon et al.) as primary references, as applied to claim 1 and its dependents have been withdrawn in light of the amendment. The core of the previous rejection relying upon US 2020/0343501 (Da Costa Pito et al.) is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment. Thus, the action is final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0343501 (Da Costa Pito et al.).
As to claim 1, Da Costa Pito et al. teach a battery casing for a vehicle, the battery casing comprising:
a housing [1] having an internal space (cavity [4]) for accommodating a battery and including a lateral surface portion (lateral wall [36b]) configured to cover a lateral surface of the battery (fig. 6; abs);
a first reinforcement part (right part of reinforcement elements [37] as seen in fig. 6) configured to extend in a longitudinal direction of the housing and coupled to the lateral surface portion, forming a closed cross-section (closed by the longitudinal extension structure) (fig. 6);
a second reinforcement part (left part of reinforcement elements [37] as seen in fig. 6) configured to extend in the longitudinal direction of the housing [1] and coupled to the first reinforcement part (right part of reinforcement elements [37] as seen in fig. 6); and
a side panel (lateral wall [35b] and wall connected to flange [311]) configured to extend in the longitudinal direction of the housing and having an internal space and an open side directed toward the second reinforcement part (left part of reinforcement elements [37] as seen in fig. 6), such that the second reinforcement part is fitted to be surrounded through the open side, and upper (part connected to flange [311]) and lower (lateral wall [35b]) ends of the open side are coupled to the first reinforcement part (via the vertical line of [37]) to constitute a member in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle in a state in which the second reinforcement part is embedded (fig. 6),
wherein a lower portion (lateral wall [35b]) of the side panel (lateral wall [35b] and wall connected to flange [311]) and a lower portion of the second reinforcement part (left part of reinforcement elements [37] as seen in fig. 6) each have a shape having a gradient that increases as the lower portion of the side panel and the lower portion of the second reinforcement part extend from the lateral surface portion of the housing (fig. 6) (angle formed).
As to claim 6, Da Costa Pito et al. teach the lower portion (lateral wall [35b]) of the side panel and the lower portion of the second reinforcement part (left part of reinforcement elements [37] as seen in fig. 6) are shaped to have the same gradient (as they are fitted to one another) (fig. 6).
As to claim 7, Da Costa Pito et al. teach the lower portion (lateral wall [35b]) of the side panel and the lower portion of the second reinforcement part (left part of reinforcement elements [37] as seen in fig. 6) are shaped to have a gradient in a range of 1 to 10 degrees (fig. 6). This interpretation taken barring specification as to what the gradient is taken with respect to (as both items are fitted to one another, they are 1-10 degrees graded from the same basis line), barring specification as to what the 1-10 degrees is formed with respect to. Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Costa Pito et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 2024/0097256 (Sonobe).
Claim 10, Da Costa Pito et al. may teach of tensile elasticity (para 0009, 0015). However, Da Costa Pito et al. do not teach wherein tensile strength of the lateral surface portion, the first reinforcement part, and the side panel is equal to or greater than 1,200 MPa.
However, in the same field of endeavor (regarding a reinforcing housing), Sonobe et al. teaches the presence of structural parts, such as an impact absorbing member [30]; and reinforcing member [40] having tensile strengths of 440-1500 MPa (para 0045, 0054, 0083) (overlapping the claimed range of greater than 1,200 MPa, thus rendering it obvious; see MPEP §2144.05(I)). The combination of the tensile strength of Sonobe (400-1500 MPa) with the structure of Da Costa Pito et al. (especially as applied to the lateral surface portion, the first reinforcement part, and the side panel) would the predictable result of providing a reinforcing housing, wherein each element would perform the same function as it does separately (structure and strength for proper reinforcing). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to combine the tensile strength of Sonobe (400-1500 MPa) with the structure of Da Costa Pito et al. (especially as applied to the lateral surface portion, the first reinforcement part, and the side panel), as the combination would the predictable result of providing a reinforcing housing, wherein each element would perform the same function as it does separately. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
Claim(s) 13 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonobe.
As to claim 13, Sonobe teaches a battery casing [1] for a vehicle, the battery casing comprising:
a housing (tray [10]) having an internal space for accommodating a battery and including a lateral surface portion (left part of first side frame [12c], | part as seen in fig. 9) configured to cover a lateral surface of the battery (figs. 7-9);
a first reinforcement part (right part of first side frame [12c], ] part as seen in fig. 9) configured to extend in a longitudinal direction of the housing and coupled to the lateral surface portion, forming a closed cross-section (closed by the left part of the first side frame [12c]);
a second reinforcement part (impact absorbing member [30]) configured to extend in the longitudinal direction of the housing and coupled to the first reinforcement part; and
a side panel (reinforcing member [40]) configured to extend in the longitudinal direction of the housing and having an internal space and an open side directed toward the second reinforcement part, such that the second reinforcement part is fitted to be surrounded through the open side, and upper and lower ends of the open side are coupled to the first reinforcement part (right part of first side frame [12c], ] part as seen in fig. 9) to constitute a member in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle in a state in which the second reinforcement part (impact absorbing member [30]) is embedded (figs. 7, 9),
wherein the second reinforcement part (impact absorbing member [30]) is made of a different material from the side panel (reinforcing member [40]), as the impact absorbing member [30] and reinforcing member [40] can individually made of materials such as steel, aluminum alloy, or magnesium alloy (para 0054, 0083) (appreciation of one part made of steel, and the other of magnesium alloy falls within the teaching of Sonobe; as no specific example exists, sufficient specificity regarding anticipation is not present; however, having different materials would be obvious as encompassed by the teaching),
and wherein a thickness second reinforcement part (impact absorbing member [30]) is greater than a thickness of the side panel (reinforcing member [40]) (as seen by the x-direction of the parts in figs. 7 and 9 (reinforcing member [40] houses impact absorbing member [30] and thus is thicker).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to claim 1 and dependents thereon, as Sonobe and Yoon et al. are no longer applied to claim 1 and its dependents, any arguments are now moot.
As to the rejection of claim regarding claim 1 with respect to DaCosta Pito, Applicant argues (a) the claimed invention (a lower portion of the side panel and a lower portion of the second reinforcement part each have a shape having a gradient that increases as the lower portion of the side panel and the lower portion of the second reinforcement part extend from the lateral surface portion of the housing) is not taught as Da Costa Pito’s teaching is towards reinforcement elements [37] being ribs/reinforcement bars within a cavity, and that later walls [35a, 36a] are inclined from rigidity, (b) which is different than the claimed invention, which allows the side panel to deform while resisting upward or downward bending under a lateral load.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to (a): Nothing in the claimed invention precludes the interpretation of the prior art as applied to claim language (i.e. a lower portion (lateral wall [35b]) of the side panel (lateral wall [35b] and wall connected to flange [311]) and a lower portion of the second reinforcement part (left part of reinforcement elements [37] as seen in fig. 6) each have a shape having a gradient that increases as the lower portion of the side panel and the lower portion of the second reinforcement part extend from the lateral surface portion of the housing (fig. 6)).
With respect to (b): In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the structure of the the side panel to deform while resisting upward or downward bending under a lateral load) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Thus the arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
As to the rejection of claim regarding claim 7 with respect to DaCosta Pito, Applicant argues that the rejection relied on the angle visually in fig. 6, which is not proper, as no angle, scale, dimensions are set forth (citing MPEP 2125).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that perhaps Applicant has misunderstood the rejection of record. Only the presence of a visual angle as a shape is relied upon, which is proper. However, no specific numbers or dimensions are relied upon. Rather the interpretation is taken regarding the breadth of the claim (claim not specifying what gradient is taken with respect to) leading to the claim language being met. Specifically: “This interpretation taken barring specification as to what the gradient is taken with respect to (as both items are fitted to one another, they are 1-10 degrees graded from the same basis line), barring specification as to what the 1-10 degrees is formed with respect to. Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).” Thus the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
As to claim 13, Applicant argues that the new claim is not taught by the previously relied upon prior art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. A 103 rejection under Sonobe is applicable (as set forth above, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake). Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 8-9, and 11-12 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 an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach, suggest, or render obvious the invention of at least claims 2, 8-9 and 10-11.
Claim 2 teaches a battery casing comprising the elements therein. Notably, claim 2 requires: “wherein the first reinforcement part is repeatedly bent in a width direction of the housing and a direction perpendicular to a ground surface and configured to define a concave-convex structure, wherein the concave-convex structure comprises a recessed portion recessed in the width direction of the housing, and a protruding portion protruding in the width direction of the housing”
Da Costa Pito et al. teaches the structure of fig. 6. No motivation exists to modify Da Costa Pito et al. to arrive at the claimed invention (regarding the bent structure). Thus, none of the prior art, alone or in combination teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the claimed invention. Since claims 3-4 are dependent upon claim 2, they are allowable for the same reason.
Claim 8 teaches a battery casing comprising the elements therein. Notably, claim 8 requires: “wherein through-holes are formed at one end of the side panel and one end of the second reinforcement part, and reinforcement members are coupled to the through-holes of the side panel and the second reinforcement part”
Da Costa Pito et al. teaches the structure of fig. 6. No motivation exists to modify Da Costa Pito et al. to arrive at the claimed invention (regarding the through-holes and respective coupling of the side panel and second reinforcement member). Thus, none of the prior art, alone or in combination teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the claimed invention.
Claim 9 teaches a battery casing comprising the elements therein. Notably, claim 9 requires: “wherein the second reinforcement part is made of different materials from the lateral surface portion, the first reinforcement part, and the side panel”
Da Costa Pito et al. teaches the structure of fig. 6. No motivation exists to modify Da Costa Pito et al. to arrive at the claimed invention (regarding the use of different materials). Thus, none of the prior art, alone or in combination teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the claimed invention.
Claim 11 teaches a battery casing comprising the elements therein. Notably, claim 11 requires: “wherein the second reinforcement part comprises first and second bent portions shaped to protrude and spaced apart from each other in the longitudinal direction, the first bent portion is inclined at one point in a width direction such that two opposite ends extending in the width direction have different heights, and two opposite ends of the second bent portion extending in the width direction have the same height”
Da Costa Pito et al. teaches the structure of fig. 6. No motivation exists to modify Da Costa Pito et al. to arrive at the claimed invention (the specified claim structure including protrusions, space, different heights, and the same height). Thus, none of the prior art, alone or in combination teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the claimed invention. Since claim 12 is dependent upon claim 11, it would be allowable for the same reason.
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 EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 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, 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights