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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed April 17, 2024 and June 18, 2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
With respect to foreign language references with no translation of the document: “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiner in conducting searches.” See MPEP §609.04(a)(II) (D) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii).
Drawings
The drawings received April 17, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The specification received April 17, 2024 has been reviewed for examination purposes.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 is unclear. It recites that the sealing member is between an inner wall of the housing and the sealing region. It is not understood how the sealing member is between the sealing region rather than within the sealing region. Rather, it would appear that the sealing member would be provided in a sealing region rather than between it as claimed. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 2-15 are dependent upon claim 1 and do not remedy this issue. Therefore claims 2-15 are rejected for this same reasons.
Claim 3 which recites that the distance between the sealing region and the inner wall is 10mm. This appears to define that there is a gap between the sealing region and the housing that is 10mm. But it appears that the distance is actually a distance from the housing inner wall within which the sealing member resides, thus the space where the sealing member resides would define a sealing portion. It may be that claim 3 is attempting to define the area wherein the sealing member resides (the sealing region being 10mm high and to mm wide, which accommodates the sealing member within that region), however the manner in which claim 3 is currently phrased is not consistent with this understanding and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood the sealing member to be positioned between the housing and sealing region as claimed but instead be within the sealing region. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 4-6 contains the trademark/trade name TOX riveting points. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a particular type of rivet (self-piercing rivet) and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the phrase “plate-like shape” at line 2. The addition of the word “like” to an otherwise definite expression as neither the claims nor the remainder of the disclosure sufficiently define to what extent the term “like” defines what does or does not constitute a “plate-like shape” so as to render it indefinite. It is held to be a term of resemblance but there is insufficient objective criterion to ascertain the clear boundaries of the claimed term. It is suggested that the phrase “-like” be deleted from the claim to overcome this rejection.
Claims 9-12 are dependent upon claim 8 and do not remedy this issue. Therefore claims 9-12 are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tajima et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0155232).
As to claim 1, Tajima discloses a battery case, comprising:
a housing 220/221, the housing 220/221 having an open end;
an end cap 210/211, the end cap 210/211 fitting with the housing 220/221 and covering the open end, the end cap 210/211 being provided with a groove and a sealing region, the groove being provided in a surface of the end cap 210/211 facing away from the housing 220/221, and the sealing region being arranged on a peripheral surface of the end cap 210/211 and corresponding to an inner side wall of the groove; and
a sealing member 240, the sealing member 240 being arranged between an inner wall of the housing 220/221 and the sealing region (Figs. 17-20).
PNG
media_image1.png
272
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
239
352
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
256
359
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
232
390
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 14, Tajima teaches of a battery comprising the battery case of claim 1 (Fig. 1 for example).
As to claim 15, Tajima teaches of a power consuming device comprising the battery of claim 14 as would have been of routine skill in the art.
Claims 1, 2 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (CN112350014A).
As to claim 1, Zhou discloses a battery case, comprising:
a housing 1, the housing 1 having an open end;
an end cap 2, the end cap 2 fitting with the housing 1 and covering the open end, the end cap 2 being provided with a groove and a sealing region, the groove being provided in a surface of the end cap 2 facing away from the housing 1, and the sealing region being arranged on a peripheral surface of the end cap 2 and corresponding to an inner side wall of the groove; and
a sealing member 6, the sealing member 6 being arranged between an inner wall of the housing 1 and the sealing region (Figs. 1, 5).
PNG
media_image5.png
545
436
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
343
488
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, the groove is provided in a height direction of the housing 2 and a dimension of the sealing region, for example, defined by sealing part 6 is less than the depth of the groove and the sealing assembly 5/6 is the same depth as the groove (Figs. 1 and 5).
As to claim 13, structure 5 can be held to be an abutting structure arranged in a circumferential direction in the open end and the sealing member 6 abuts against the abutting structure (Figs. 1 and 5).
As to claim 14, Zhou teaches of a battery comprising the battery case of claim 1 (Fig. 1 for example).
As to claim 15, Zhou teaches of a power consuming device (deep sea equipment and submersible vehicles) comprising the batter of claim 14.
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.
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0155232) as applied to claim 1 above.
Tajima teaches of what appears to be the sealing region in the height direction being slightly more than the depth of the groove.
While Tajima does not teach of the dimension of the sealing groove to be less than or equal to the depth of the groove (claim 2), varying this dimension would have been of routine optimization in the art for the predicable benefit of achieving a sufficient seal between the cap and housing of Tajima. While, the examples show the sealing member to have a height larger than the depth of the groove, reducing the height of the sealing member would have been of routine skill in the art for the benefit of reducing the amount of sealing member necessary to maintain an effective seal. Reducing the seal height to be less than or equal to the depth of the groove would have been reasonably obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art while still maintaining an effective seal between the cap and housing. Tuning the height of the sealing region to be equal to or less than the groove height while maintaining the effective seal function of Tajima would have been well within the skill of the ordinary worker in the art and of routine optimization for sufficient fit and compression, sealing while reducing the amount of sealing member needed to effectively achieve fit, compression and sealing.
Limiting the sealing region to no more than the height of the groove depth represents a predictable dimensional constraint that positions the sealing member within the defined cap/housing region with a high rate of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to retain the necessary sealing function of the sealing member 240 of Tajima between the cap and housing while reducing the effective height the sealing region occupied would have had sufficient skill to do so as routine optimization for sufficient fit and compression, sealing while reducing the amount of sealing member needed to effectively achieve fit, compression and sealing.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the height of the sealing region to be the same or less than the height of the groove of the cap as changing such a parameter would have been of routine optimization for sufficient fit and compression, sealing while reducing the amount of sealing member needed to effectively achieve fit, compression and sealing.
As to the dimension of the sealing region is 10mm and a distance between the inner wall of the housing is 10mm (claim 3).
As to selection of the relative dimensions of the sealing region and distance, the optimization of distances of relative housing features of a battery pack, in the absence of evidence of criticality, would be of routine design choice or optimization for the benefit of arranging a seal in a preferred placement configuration relative to the housing and end cap. As noted above Tajima teaches of the same battery case with the same housing, end cap and sealing member with the sealing member disposed between the groove surface of the end cap and the inner wall surface of the housing.
As to the relative dimension of the sealing region being a certain width, the selection of the sealing region to be a selected height would have been of routine skill in the art to provide for a desired compression and effective seal between components. Likewise the distance of the sealing region being 10mm in combination with the height of the sealing region being 10mm is of routine skill in the art for the recognized optimization of a given seal for effective sealing between an end cap (cover) and housing. In such an arrangement the height and distance of the sealing member 240 governs the amount of location and effectiveness of seal engagement, contact area and space occupied by the sealing member. Because these are known variables that affect whether a seal can function properly in a battery housing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select workable dimensions through routine design interanion and conventional dimensional adjustment with a reasonable expectation of achieving an effective seal.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the height and distance of the sealing region to be 10mm and 10mm or similar in Tajima as it would have been a known matter of routine design choice to optimize the dimensions of the seal region according to battery pack size and sealing member properties with the understanding that choosing a resultant combination of height and distance of the sealing region would have been to effectively provide for a sufficient seal region in a given battery. See In re Applied Materials., Inc. 692 F.3d 1289, 1295-96 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN112350014A) as applied to claim 2 above.
Zhou does not teach of the dimension of the sealing region is 10mm and a distance between the inner wall of the housing is 10mm.
Zhou does teach that the sealing member 6 is disposed at a distance along a portion of the height direction of the housing 1 and can 2. Zhou further teaches that the sealing member is spaced from the inner wall of the housing through part of the outer portion of the abutting structure 5. In such an arrangement the height and distance of the sealing member 6 governs the amount of location and effectiveness of seal engagement, contact area and space occupied by the sealing member. Because these are known variables that affect whether a seal can function properly in a battery housing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select workable dimensions through routine design interanion and conventional dimensional adjustment with a reasonable expectation of achieving an effective seal.
As to selection of the relative dimensions of the sealing region and distance, the optimization of distances of relative housing features of a battery pack, in the absence of evidence of criticality, would be of routine design choice or optimization for the benefit of arranging a seal in a preferred placement configuration relative to the housing and end cap. As noted above Zhou teaches of the same battery case with the same housing, end cap and sealing member with the sealing member disposed between the groove surface of the end cap and the inner wall surface of the housing (Figs. 1 and 5).
As to the relative dimension of the sealing region being a certain width, the selection of the sealing region to be a selected height would have been of routine skill in the art to provide for a desired compression and effective seal between components. Likewise the distance of the sealing region being 10mm in combination with the height of the sealing region being 10mm is of routine skill in the art for the recognized optimization of a given seal for effective sealing between an end cap (cover) and housing.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the height and distance of the sealing region to be 10mm and 10mm or similar in Zhou as it would have been a known matter of routine design choice to optimize the dimensions of the seal region according to battery pack size and sealing member properties with the understanding that choosing a resultant combination of height and distance of the sealing region would have been to effectively provide for a sufficient seal region in a given battery. See In re Applied Materials., Inc. 692 F.3d 1289, 1295-96 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN112350014A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Basile et al. (DE102016013847A) and Xie et al. (CN 209290155U).
Zhou does not teach of the side wall of the groove connected to the housing by means of TOX riveting (self-piercing rivets).
Basile, drawn to the same field of endeavor that of battery case sealing, disclosed that the compression of a sealing surface between parts of a battery housing can be effectively achieved by any number of conventional fasteners including screw, rivets or punch rivets. Xie, drawn to the same field of endeavor that of battery case sealing, recognized self-piercing rivets (SPR, e.g. TOX riveting) was recognized as fastening means in vehicle systems for providing excellent fastening while also reducing the weight of the battery pack (para. [0035], for example).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fasteners of Zhou to be self-piercing rivets as taught by Basile and Xie since it would have provided a suitable alternative conventional fastening design for a battery enclosure providing both good mechanical fasting and a reduction in weight of the battery pack due to the design of the rivets.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN112350014A) in view of Basile et al. (DE102016013847A) and Xie et al. (CN 209290155U) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0103590).
As to claim 6, Zhou teaches of the fastening points (defined by bolts 53) being arranged at intervals along the entire circumferential direction of the open end.
Modified Zhou teaches of providing a sealing member but does not teach of providing the sealing member with avoidance holes corresponding to the fasteners in a one to one basis (claims 5-6).
It was conventionally recognized in battery pack designs to provide a gasket between a cover and lower housing having one-to-one avoidance holes in relation to a corresponding fastener that secures the cover and lower housing together. Such designs were effective in providing an excellent seal between elements and retains the seal in place relative to the fasteners and around the fasteners to effectively seal the fastener regions. Basile, for example, noted that a seal 34 between a corresponding lower housing and cover can include an array of avoidance holes in one-to-one correspondence with fasteners 36 (Fig. 1). Lee drawn to the same field of endeavor that of battery case sealing, recognized that it was known in the art to couple a cover and lower housing part of a battery pack using fasteners which pass through openings not only in the housing parts but also through corresponding openings in a circumferential gasket 120 (paras. [0020], [0078]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sealing member of Zhou with avoidance holes corresponding to the fasteners in a one to one basis as taught by Basile and Lee since it would have provided a feature to the sealing member that improved mechanical and sealing properties of the sealing member and battery pack housing.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN112350014A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Olimpio et al. (EP 231799A).
Zhou does not teach of first and second connecting structures on an end of the edge cap and open end of the housing, respectfully, where the first structure fits with the second structure to connect the cap and housing (claim 7), where the second structure is a plate-like structure in snap fit connection with the first structure at an angle (claim 8), the first structure is a hook (claim 9).
Olimpio is drawn to the same field of endeavor, battery pack enclosures. Olimpio disclosed that it was known in the art to modify a cover or cap plate with first and second connecting structures to connect and fixt the end cap to the housing (Fig, 3 for example applied to claim 7). The second connecting structure of the housing is a plate-like structure which is snap fit with the first structure 10 at a preset angle between that satisfies a being greater than zero and up to 90 degrees (Fig. 3, applied to claim 8). The first structure is a hook 7 (Fig. 3, claim 9). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cap plate of Zhou to include an overlapping snap-fit design as taught by Olimpio since it would have provided an additional attaching and overlapping seal feature between the cover and housing of Zhou thus having predictably improved both attachment and sealing of the enclosure.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN112350014A) in view of Olimpio et al. (EP 231799A) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hashimoto (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0307848).
Hashimoto discloses folded cover to housing connecting structures along a circumference of the enclosure where the corners are notched (the hook features do not reside at the corners Fig. 7 corner). In simple mechanical terms, it would have been of routine skill in the art to modify the design of the cover to provide an effective hook structure and that corners would have issues with the hooks given the turn radius associated at the corner. Thus it would have been of routine and predictable skill in the art to modify the hook structure of modified Zhou by implementing corner cutouts as taught by Hashimoto since it would have provided a good edge structure and avoided adverse mechanical issues or detachment at the corners of the case.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the corners of the hook structure of modified Zhou to have cutouts as taught by Hashimoto since it would been of routine and predictable skill in the art for providing a good edge structure and avoided adverse mechanical issues or detachment at the corners of the case.
Claims 7-8 and 11-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN112350014A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reibling et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,371,181).
Zhou does not teach of first and second connecting structures on an end of the edge cap and open end of the housing, respectfully, where the first structure fits with the second structure to connect the cap and housing (claim 7), where the second structure is a plate-like structure in snap fit connection with the first structure at an angle (claim 8), the first structure is an edge fold (claim 11) and the edge fold is provided with a notch at the corner of the end cap (claim 12).
Reibling is drawn to the same field of endeavor, battery pack enclosures. Reibling disclosed that it was known in the art to modify a cover or cap plate with first and second connecting structures to connect and fix the end cap to the housing (Figs. 7a-7b for example applied to claim 7). The second connecting structure of the housing is a plate-like structure which is snap fit with the first structure 10 at a preset angle between that satisfies a being greater than zero and up to 90 degrees (Figs. 7a-7b, applied to claim 8). The first structure is an edge-folder structure (Figs. 7a-7b, claim 9). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cap plate of Zhou to include an overlapping fold design as taught by Reibling since it would have provided an additional attaching and overlapping seal feature between the cover and housing of Zhou thus having predictably improved both attachment and sealing of the enclosure.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN112350014A) in view of Reibling et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,371,181) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Hashimoto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0307848).
Modified Zhou does not teach of notching the corners of the folded structure of the cover.
Hashimoto discloses folded cover to housing connecting structures along a circumference of the enclosure where the corners are notched (the folding features do not reside at the corners Fig. 7corner). In simple mechanical terms, it would have been of routine skill in the art to modify the design of the cover to provide an effective fold structure and that corners would have issues with folding given the turn radius associated at the corner. Thus it would have been of routine and predictable skill in the art to modify the folded structure of modified Zhou by implementing corner cutouts as taught by Hashimoto since it would have provided a good edge fold structure and avoided adverse mechanical fold issues at the corners of the case.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the corners of the edge-folded structure of modified Zhou to have cutouts as taught by Hashimoto since it would been of routine and predictable skill in the art for providing a good edge fold structure and avoided adverse mechanical fold issues at the corners of the case.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kobayashi et al. (WO2021/193557) discloses a battery case 1, comprising a housing 500, an end cap 400, provided with a groove and a sealing region. Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0227704 discloses a sealing member having one-to-one avoidance holes for receiving fasteners for fastening housing parts of a battery pack together.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm.
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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights