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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motohashi et al (US 2018/0190955).
Regarding claim 1, Motohashi teaches a battery pack (title) which comprises an anergy storage apparatus comprising an energy storage device 250 (batteries) comprising a case and an outer case body 240 comprising upper case 241 and lower case 243 in which the batteries are accommodated (Fig. 7). Restraining plate 220 is considered to constitute the instant claimed plate-shaped member aligned with the energy storage device in a first direction and disposed along the outer case, wherein the plate-shaped member protrusions can be seen (Fig. 7). While Motohashi fails to expressly teach that the encased batteries comprise attached case body and case lid body components, there does not appear to be any structural distinction other than nominal insomuch as the battery disclosed by Motohashi is ultimately fully encased, as would be accomplished with attached “body” and “lid.” Regardless, at least one component that would function as a “lid” is expected to be required in order to seal the case after placement of the battery cell active components.
The limitations of claim 2 are satisfied by the protrusion beads 222 of the restraining plate 220 (Fig. 7 and par. 74).
Regarding claim 3, Motohashi teaches a plurality of batteries 250 a-d aligned in a longitudinal direction of the case lid body in a third direction intersecting with the claimed first and second directions, and the restraining plate 220 includes a plurality of protrusion beads 222 aligned in the third direction (Fig. 7 and par. 74).
Regarding claim 4, Motohashi teaches that the restraining plate 220 is attached to an outer surface of the outer case body 240, specifically the upper case 241 (Fig. 7 and par. 62).
Regarding claim 5, Motohashi teaches that the restraining plate 220 is disposed in contact with the outer case body 240, specifically the upper case 241 (Fig. 7 and par. 62). As seen in Figure 7, when restraining plate 220 is disposed on upper case 241, a space will be formed between at least the beads on the surface of upper plate 241 and the lower surface of restraining plate 220.
Regarding claim 6, Motohashi teaches that the beads 248 of the upper case 241 improve the rigidity of the upper case 241 and the body 240 in the particular direction they are formed (par. 70) and that the beads 222 of the restraining plate 220 improve the rigidity of the restraining plate in the particular direction they are formed. Further, the direction of the beads 222 are not limited (par. 74). Absent a showing of unexpected results, the claimed configuration of protrusions is considered to be within the scope of the teachings of Motohashi, as Motohashi teaches that the beads function to add strength and support to the structure in any given direction in which they are placed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Colin W. Slifka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights