DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2021028717, filed on 2/25/2021.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1-4, 7 and 8 are pending. Claims 5 and 6 have been cancelled. Claims 1-3 have been amended following the previous office action dated 4/6/2026. Claim 8 is newly entered in the response dated 6/23/2026.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered. The arguments are not persuasive, and are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments. The arguments of the applicant are summarized below.
5. Regarding claim 1, applicant amended the claim adding in additional limitations not originally present in the claim. The limitations of, “a top surface of a protruding-direction distal end of the protruding portion abuts the core pack, and a width of the protruding portion in a direction intersecting a longitudinal direction of the casing becomes wider as the protruding portion is further away from the core pack, and a corner portion of the protruding portion in a width direction intersecting the longitudinal direction of the casing is a curving portion” were added. These mainly are derived from aspects of claims 2, 5 and 6, and are supported by the disclosure.
6. Applicant argues Yoshioka and Myung does not fully teach the newly added limitations, stating Yoshioka the battery walls only abuts the rib in a given condition (Applicant’s Response, page 6, paragraph 2) and Myung teaches the rub curves upwards as it extends in the height direction (Applicant’s Response, page 6, paragraph 3), instead of the side corner that extends extending in the longitudinal direction (Applicant’s Response, page 7, paragraph 1).
7. Applicant's arguments regarding the abutting ribs has been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Yoshioka teaches the ribs are formed on the walls (the container body 2 includes ribs 220a to 220c made of a synthetic resin and projecting upright from the inner wall, except for the inner wall of the bottom face, toward the center of the container, the ribs corresponding to the projecting portion, [0192]). Yoshioka additionally teaches that the ribs 220a to 220c may be formed in a tapered shape in which the width becomes gradually wider from the opening 2x toward the bottom face. In this case, upon introducing the power source main body 4 in the container body 2 the bottom face of the power source main body 4 is engaged with the widened portion of the ribs, and therefore the power source main body 4 can be stably fixed in the container body 2 ([0217]). The examiner notes, in tandem with Figure 24, Yoshioka teaches ribbing that abuts the wall of the battery more than just during external shock.
8. With claim 1 inheriting the limitations of claims 5 and 6, the examiner previously viewed Yoshioka in view of Myung to teach those limitations. The examiner agrees Yoshioka nor Myung does not teach the longitudinal corners are curved, as the amended claim language dictates. However, new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments have been found and are outlined below.
9. Claim 2 has been amended to reflect the antecedent basis of the protrusions extending in the longitudinal direction, necessitated by the amendments to claim 1. Claim 3 modifies the language of “one end portion” to “an end surface of done end” of the protruding portion. The examiner views these as clarification or formal changes, versus substantially changing the claim limitations.
10. Claim 8 has been added. Applicant says support for the claim is in paragraphs 30 and 47 of the instant specification. The examiner did not find support in those paragraphs. but instead found support for the new limitations in paragraphs 28 and 45 of the instant specification and Figures 3 and 4. The claim is examined on its merits, below.
Claim Objections
11. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 8, the instant claim is drawn to, in part “…an end surface of the end portion of the protruding portion …”. This is identical to language in claim 3, which claim 8 modifies to be a first inclining surface. To avoid confusion, the examiner recommends this be rewritten as “a second end surface …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myung et al. (US 20200266402 A1; Henceforth, Myung) in view of Yamamoto (US 20180102565 A1; Henceforth, Yamamoto).
17. Regarding claim 1, the instant claim is drawn to a battery pack comprising: a core pack that includes a cell holder holding a cell; and a casing that houses the core pack, wherein an inner wall of the casing is provided with a protruding portion that protrudes toward an outer wall of the cell holder, a top surface of a protruding-direction distal end of the protruding portion abuts the core pack, and a width of the protruding portion in a direction intersecting a longitudinal direction of the casing becomes wider as the protruding portion is further away from the core pack, and a corner portion of the protruding portion in a width direction intersecting the longitudinal direction of the casing is a curving portion.
18. Myung teaches a battery pack (Figure 1, reproduced below) composed of a cell module and a pack case (Figure 1, below; [0007]). The cell module is composed of a plurality of pouch cells ([0051]). Myung teaches the pack case has protruding members on the inner surface of the pack case that get narrower as they extend away from the pack case towards the cell module, where a surface abuts the surface of the battery module ([0084] and Figures 2b and 10, reproduced below). Myung teaches that this structural configuration has high structural safety and stiffness by minimizes the area the protrusion contacts the cell assembly while maximizing the area the protrusion has with the outer casing (page 5, paragraph 82). The structure allows for the protrusion to absorb the compression tolerance while holding the cell assembly securely (page 5, paragraph 82). Myung further teaches that the protrusions are curved (Figures 2a and 9 reproduced above), as described above. Myung teaches that, when the protrusions are curved, the cell assembly can be smoothly inserted into the case body along the curved portions without collisions with angled edges (page 5, paragraph 77). Myung does not teach that the longitudinal edges of the protrusion are curved.
PNG
media_image1.png
793
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1, reproduced from Myung.
PNG
media_image2.png
258
271
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
337
409
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2b (left) and Figure 10 (right), reproduced from Myung.
19. Yamamoto teaches a battery pack comprising energy storage devices within a casing with two sets of positioning protrusions within the casing (Figure 2, reproduced below). The protrusions take the form of curved positioning protrusions that rest between and abuts the electronic storage devices, aiding in lateral positioning, (Figures 6 and 8, below, element 13; [0063]), as well as shorter aligning protrusions where one end portion of the portion in the longitudinal direction is an inclining surface inclining towards the other end portion in the longitudinal direction (Figure 6, element 12, reproduced below). This configuration allows the curved positioning protrusions to be in direct contact with the curved surface of the energy storage device, creating a stronger point of contact, preventing the risk of surface deformation, and this helps guide the energy storage device to its proper lateral orientation ([0031] and [0063]). The examiner notes that the curved surfaces are along the longitudinal edges.
PNG
media_image4.png
618
438
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 2, reproduced from Yamamoto.
PNG
media_image5.png
555
464
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
428
643
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figures 6 (left) and 8 (right), reproduced from Yamamoto.
20. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Myung by using the longitudinally-curved protruding portions taught by Yamamoto, in the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation, as taught by both Yamamoto and Myung, to include the curved protrusions that guide the cell assembly into the case body, preventing collisions with edges and minimizing damage to the cell assembly. There would have been a motivation to use the longitudinally-curved corners taught by Yamamoto, as they creating a stronger point of contact, preventing the risk of surface deformation ([0027]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that the simple substitution of the longitudinal corners of the protrusions of Myung for those taught by Yamamoto, in the same field of endeavor, would have yielded predictable results, as the protrusions would be performing the same function as in the battery of Yamamoto. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
21. Regarding claim 2, the instant claim is drawn to the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the protruding portion extends along the longitudinal direction of the casing.
22. Myung and Yamamoto teach the battery pack according to claim 1. Both teach the protruding portion extends along the longitudinal direction of the casing (Myung: Figure 1, above and Figures 2a and 9, below; Yamamoto: Figures 2 and 6, above).
PNG
media_image7.png
306
248
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
617
462
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 2a (left) and 9 (right), reproduced from Myung.
23. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Myung by using the longitudinally-curved protruding portions taught by Yamamoto, in the same field of endeavor, as outlined in claim 1, above.
24. Regarding claim 3, the instant claim is drawn to the battery pack according to claim 2, wherein an end surface of one end of the protruding portion in the longitudinal direction is an inclining surface inclining toward another end portion in the longitudinal direction.
25. Myung and Yamamoto teach the battery pack according to claim 2. Myung teaches one end surface of the protrusion is curved(Figures 2a and 9, above). Yamamoto teaches a battery pack comprising energy storage devices within a casing with two sets of positioning protrusions within the casing (Figure 2, reproduced below). The protrusions take the form of a set of curved positioning protrusions that rests between and abuts the electronic storage devices, aiding in lateral positioning, (Figures 6 and 8, above, element 13; [0063]), as well as a set of shorter aligning protrusions where one end portion of the portion in the longitudinal direction is an inclining surface inclining towards the other end portion in the longitudinal direction (Figure 6, above, element 12). Yamamoto teaches that the shorter aligning protrusions (Figure 6, above, element 12) gradually protrude out further the more the longer they extend into the casing, and the flat surface guides the energy storage device into the proper longitudinal orientation, upon insertion ([0063]).
26. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Myung by using protruding portions with an inclining surface inclining towards another end portion in the longitudinal direction, as taught by Yamamoto, in the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation, as taught by Yamamoto, to include two types of protruding members, some with curved surfaces for lateral positioning and some with inclined faces for longitudinal alignment, help align energy storage devices both laterally and longitudinally within the outer casing. A person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that the simple substitution of the curved surface of Myung for the inclining surface of the shorter protrusions of Yamamoto, from the same field of endeavor would have had yielded the predictable result of guiding the insertion of an energy storage device, since the protrusions would be performing the same function as in the battery of Yamamoto. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
27. Regarding claim 4, the instant claim is drawn to the battery pack according to claim 2, wherein a longitudinal dimension of the protruding portion is smaller than a longitudinal dimension of the casing, and an end portion of the protruding portion in the longitudinal direction is disposed at a position away from an end portion of the casing in the longitudinal direction.
28. Myung and Yamamoto teach the battery pack according to claim 2. Yamamoto teaches the smaller guiding protrusions have a smaller longitudinal dimension than that of the case (Figures 2 and 6, above) where one end portion of the portion in the longitudinal direction is an inclining surface is disposed away from the top end portion of the casing (Figure 6, above).
29. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Myung by using protruding portions with an inclining surface inclining towards another end portion in the longitudinal direction, as taught by Yamamoto, in the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation, as taught by Yamamoto, to include two types of protruding members, some with curved surfaces for lateral positioning and some with inclined faces for longitudinal alignment, help align energy storage devices both laterally and longitudinally within the outer casing. A person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that the simple substitution of the curved surface of Myung for the inclining surface of the shorter protrusions of Yamamoto, from the same field of endeavor, would have had yielded the predictable result using protrusions that are shorter than the height of the battery casing to align the longitudinal direction of an energy storage device, since the protrusions would be performing the same function as in the battery of Yamamoto. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
30. Regarding claim 7, the instant claim is drawn to the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein a portion of the protruding portion that abuts the core pack is a flat surface.
31. Myung and Yamamoto teach the battery pack according to claim 1. Both teach the portion of the protrusion that abuts the core pack is a flat surface (Myung: Figures 2a, 2, 9 and 10, above; Yamamoto: Figure 6, above).
32. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Myung by using the longitudinally-curved protruding portions taught by Yamamoto, in the same field of endeavor, as outlined in claim 1, above.
33. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myung and Yamamoto in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20140087229 A1; Henceforth, Watanabe).
34. Regarding claim 8, the instant claim is drawn to the battery pack according to claim 3, wherein the inclining surface is a first inclining surface extending from the inner wall of the casing to the protruding-direction distal end, and an end surface of the end portion of the protruding portion in the longitudinal direction is a second inclining surface extending from the inner wall of the casing to the protruding-direction distal end and inclining toward the another end portion in the longitudinal direction.
35. Myung and Yamamoto teach the battery pack according to claim 3. While Yamamoto teaches a first inclining surface on the short protrusions, neither Myung nor Yamamoto explicitly teach a second inclining end surface extending from the inner wall of the casing to the protruding-direction distal end and inclining toward the other end portion in the longitudinal direction.
36. Watanabe teaches a battery assembly that has a plurality of electric cells are housed in a case, with an abutment member to accommodate the cells in a prober position in the case (Abstract). One such abutment member is a rib which abuts against the sides of the upper ends of the electric cells ([0043]; Figure 6, element 7m, reproduced below).
PNG
media_image9.png
885
644
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figure 6, reproduced from Watanabe.
37. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Myung and Yamamoto by including a second inclined surface on the ribbing oriented towards the first inclined surface, as demonstrated by Watanabe. There would have been a motivation, as taught by Yamamoto in the same field of endeavor, to include an inclined surface on a rib, to properly guide the cell upon entry, and to prevent surface deformation of the cells ([0031] and [0063]). Additionally, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.03 (VI) B. In the instant specification, the addition of the second inclined surface is to aid in the removal of the core pack by guiding its release and precent the heat transfer sheet from being damaged (paragraph 45). This is the same function given as the first inclining surface (paragraphs 34-35 in the instant specification), both of which match the teachings of Yamamoto ([0031] and [0063]). Since the first and second inclined surfaces are motivated in identical ways, it would have been obvious to duplicate the surface to make a rib with two inclining surfaces, as taught by Watanabe, where each inclining surface performs the same function that has been previously taught by Yamamoto.
Conclusion
38. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yoshioka and Kusunoki (US 20130183544 A1; Henceforth, Yoshioka).
39. Yoshioka teaches a battery pack (Figure 1, reproduced below) comprising: a core pack that includes a cell holder holding a cell (Figures 3 and 16); and a casing that houses the core pack (Figure 24), wherein an inner wall of the casing is provided with a protruding portion that protrudes towards an outer wall of the cell holder, and that protruding portion abuts the core pack (Figure 24, below, elements 220a-c). As outlined above, Yoshioka teaches the ribs are formed on the walls (the container body 2 includes ribs 220a to 220c made of a synthetic resin and projecting upright from the inner wall, except for the inner wall of the bottom face, toward the center of the container, the ribs corresponding to the projecting portion, [0192]). Yoshioka further teaches that the walls 622a, 622c and the ribs 220b so as to be orthogonal to each other causes the walls 622a, 622c and the ribs 220b to contact each other at least when the container swings, thereby further improving the shock resistance ([0193]). Yoshioka teaches the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the protruding portion extends along a longitudinal direction of the casing (Elements 220a-c, Figure 25), and a portion of the protruding portion that abuts the core pack is a flat surface (Figures 24 and 25,).
40. 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).
41. 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.
42. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)272-9321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
43. 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.
44. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
45. 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.
/RPM/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights