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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has complied with all of the conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 02/21/2024 and 04/22/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 02/21/2024 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 02/21/2024 was reviewed and is acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the first gasket and the second gasket have different elastic hardness” in lines 1-2 should be replaced with --the first gasket and the second gasket have different elastic hardnesses-- in order to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 10-12 is/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 5 recites the limitation “an edge of the first plate” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is intended to be the same “edge of the first plate” previously recited in parent claim 1, or another separate and distinct “edge of the first plate”. For purposes of this Office Action, it will be assumed that this is intended to be the same “edge of the first plate” previously recited, consistent with the claim’s dependency.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “an edge of the first plate” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is intended to be the same “edge of the first plate” previously recited in parent claim 5, or another separate and distinct “edge of the first plate”. For purposes of this Office Action, it will be assumed that this is intended to be the same “edge of the first plate” previously recited, consistent with the claim’s dependency.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “an edge of the second plate” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is intended to be the same “edge of the second plate” previously recited in parent claim 1, or another separate and distinct “edge of the second plate”. For purposes of this Office Action, it will be assumed that this is intended to be the same “edge of the first plate” previously recited, consistent with the claim’s dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 2020/0052252 A1; hereinafter “Smith”).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a battery pack (24) comprising:
a plurality of battery modules (60) and
a pack case (62) configured to house the plurality of battery modules (as shown in Figs 2 and 3), the pack case including a first plate (enclosure lid 68) covering one surface of the plurality of battery modules (as shown in Figs 2 and 3) and a second plate (enclosure tray 70) covering the other surface of the plurality of battery modules (as shown in Figs 2 and 3),
wherein a first gasket (labeled 178 in Fig 6, but described as seal lip 180 in [0062-0063]) located along an edge of the first plate (as shown in Fig 6),
wherein a second gasket (seal flange 182) is located along an edge of the second plate (as shown in Fig 6), and
wherein the first gasket and the second gasket overlap each other in a region where one edge of each of the first plate and the second plate contact each other (as shown in Fig 6).
Regarding claim 2, Smith discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Smith further discloses that the first gasket and the second gasket have different elastic hardness[es] ([0063]).
Regarding claim 3, Smith discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Smith further discloses that an elastic hardness of the first gasket is larger than an elastic hardness of the second gasket ([0063]).
Regarding claim 4, Smith discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Smith further discloses that a degree of shape change of the first gasket is smaller than a degree of shape change of the second gasket (via fins 112 of the first gasket being smaller than the fins of the second gasket, as shown in Fig 6, i.e. because the fins of the first gasket are smaller, the first gasket necessarily has a smaller degree of shape change than the second gasket having larger fins).
Regarding claim 5, Smith discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Smith further discloses that the first gasket is fitted into a first groove excavated to a certain depth along [the] edge of the first plate (as shown in Fig 6).
Regarding claim 6, Smith discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Smith further discloses that a shape of the first gasket corresponds to a shape of [the] edge of the first plate (as shown in Fig 6).
Regarding claim 7, Smith discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Smith further discloses that a shape of the first gasket corresponds to a shape of the first groove of the first plate (as shown in Fig 6).
Regarding claim 8, Smith discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Smith further discloses that the first gasket includes an elastic material ([0063]).
Regarding claim 9, Smith discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Smith further discloses that the first gasket includes a rubber (via combination of elastomer and thermoplastic elastomer, [0063]).
Regarding claim 13, Smith discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Smith further discloses that the second gasket includes a resin (via combination of elastomer and thermoplastic elastomer, [0063]).
Regarding claim 15, Smith discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Smith further discloses a device (powertrain 10) comprising the recited battery pack (as noted above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 10-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 14 is/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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The present invention is related to, inter alia, a battery pack comprising:
(claim 10) the second gasket if in a second groove excavated to a certain depth along [the] edge of the second plate; and
(claim 14) the second gasket includes a CIPG material.
Smith et al. (US 2020/0052252 A1; hereinafter “Smith”) is considered to be the closest relevant prior art to dependent claims 10 and 14. Smith discloses most of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Smith does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious the above noted limitations. To the contrary, Smith explicitly discloses that the second gasket (seal flange 182) is disposed over the flange of the second plate (enclosure tray 70) (as shown in Fig 6), which itself fits into the first groove of the first plate (enclosure lid 68) (as shown in Fig 6), and thus there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to abandon such structure and be directed towards the recited second groove in the second plate because the flange facilitates joining and sealing the portions of the housing. Furthermore, Smith explicitly discloses that the first and second gaskets (seal lip 178/180 and seal flange 182) are coextruded prior to be fitted, which facilitates locating and retaining the gasket seal over the raised rib, i.e. flange ([0063]), and thus there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to abandon the disclosed coextrusion method and be directed towards the recited CIPG material because such a material is cured in place, and thus would not be capable of facilitating locating the gasket over the flange.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ERWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6am-3pm PDT.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 08/28/2026
Prosecution Insights