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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/18/2024 and 10/31/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 2-3, 11, 13-14 and 16-19 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.
Claims 2-3 and 11 recite the limitation "the first housing portion" and “the second housing portion” and claims 13-14 and 18-19 recite the limitation “the second housing portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims as they ultimately depend from claim 1 and claim 1 recites “at least two housing portions” so it is unclear which of the possible plurality of housing portions are considered the first and second housing portions.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the first housing portions” in line 14 and claim one recites “at least two housing portions” so it is unclear which of the possible plurality of housing portions are considered the first and claim 3 is requiring more than one first housing portions.
Claims 16-17 recite the limitation “the first seal lip” and claim 1 does not introduce a first and second seal lip thus there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1, 2, 4, 7-12, 16,17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fomen et al. (WO 2020030614 A1 - Machine Translation referenced for citations), hereinafter "Fomen" in view of Kim et al. (US 20190341590 A1), hereinafter "Kim". Fomen and Kim et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery housings.
In regard to Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 12 and 16, Fomen et al. discloses a battery housing including at least two housing portions (Battery Cover (10), Battery Housing (26)), that define a receiving space therebetween (Fomen, Figure 4.1 and annotated Figure 4.2). Fomen et al. also discloses a sealing unit configured to seal the housing, wherein a single sealing element is arranged between two housing portions (Fomen, Figure 4.2 (78)(18)(20)), wherein the sealing unit includes at least one sealing element (sealing element (14)) received in the receiving space and wherein the receiving space has a constant size in the region of the sealing element and the receiving space has a constant size in the area of the first seal lip (Fomen, see annotated Figure 4.2), wherein the sealing element includes exactly two seal lips (Fomen, (18)(20), [53]) wherein the exactly two seal lips include a first seal lip and a second seal lip, and the second seal lip has a lower height than the first seal lip (Fomen, Figure 4.2) and wherein the sealing element is arranged radially between the first housing portion and the second housing portion (Fomen, Abstract).
While Fomen provides this assembly as a battery housing it is silent as to the housing being provided for a battery pack, however, the skilled artisan of Fomen et al. would be well aware of the use of a housing with at least two housing portions and a sealing unit to house a battery pack as taught in Kim et al. which discloses a beneficial battery pack with an improved sealing force, the battery pack including: a lower case having a space therein and having a groove portion formed to extend along a certain width of an outer top surface; an upper case arranged on the lower case; a battery unit accommodated in an internal space of the lower case and including a plurality of battery cells; and a sealing member inserted into the groove portion to be located between the upper case and the lower case (Kim, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the housing of Fomen to house a battery pack as taught in Kim et al. as doing so would be an obvious variation to try and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known use of a housing for another to obtain predictable results.
PNG
media_image1.png
326
411
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4.2
In regard to Claims 8-11, 17 and 20, Fomen et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the battery pack according to claim 1. Fomen et al also discloses wherein the sealing element is enlarged in some areas wherein: the exactly two seal lips include a first seal lip and a second seal lip, and the enlargement and varying in size may be on the first or the second seal lip, and is shown within a range of at least 5% to about 25% of the size of the first sealing lip (Fomen, Figure 3.1 (54, 56), [12]) and the variation in size of the enlargement amounts to nothing more than a variable easily optimized by the skilled artisan without undue experimentation. Fomen et al. also discloses wherein the sealing element comprises at least one connecting element (Ribs (54)(56)) for a frictional connection between the sealing element and the second housing portion (Fomen, [14, 17-18]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fomen et al. (WO 2020030614 A1 - Machine Translation referenced for citations), hereinafter "Fomen" in view of Kim et al. (US 20190341590 A1), hereinafter "Kim" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Beale et al. (US 20220149464 A1), hereinafter "Beale". Fomen, Kim and Beale et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery housings.
In regard to Claim 3, Fomen et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the battery pack according to claim 2. Fomen et al. also discloses wherein the first housing portion (battery cover (10)) is formed as a connecting plate as is consistent with the current applications description of a connecting plate comprising an end cap (Original Specification, [0015]), and the second housing portion is formed as a lengthened base body (Foman, Figure 4.1).
While the skilled artisan of Foman provide a base body in a lengthened form it is not necessarily a tubular shape however the shape of the base body is a variation well known to the skilled artisan as evidenced by Beale et al. which discloses a beneficial housing for a battery stack with at least two housing portions comprising a seal wherein the wherein the first housing portions are formed as a connecting plate, and the second housing portion is formed as a tubular base body (Baele, Abstract, [0017-0018, 0045]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a housing with a tubular shape as taught in Beale as the housing of Fomen as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of housing shape for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fomen et al. (WO 2020030614 A1 - Machine Translation referenced for citations), hereinafter "Fomen" in view of Kim et al. (US 20190341590 A1), hereinafter "Kim" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Braun et al. (US 20220223956 A1), hereinafter "Braun". Fomen, Kim and Braun et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery housings.
In regard to Claims 5-6, Fomen et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the battery pack according to claim 1. Fomen et al. also discloses wherein: the exactly two seal lips include a first seal lip and a second seal lip and that either the first or second sealing lip may vary in width when formed with an enlarged portion (Fomen, Figure 3.1 (54, 56), [12]) which would reasonably include the second seal lip having a smaller width than the first seal lip when the first seal lip is provided with an enlarged portion. While Fomen discloses the two lips spaced apart and depicts a spacing between the first seal lip and the second seal lip about the same size as a width of the first seal lip (Fomen, Figure 4.2) it is silent as to the dimensions of the spacing.
However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of varying the spacing of sealing lips to provide the best seal as evidenced by Braun et al. which discloses a seal for a battery housing of a high-voltage battery wherein the housing has at least two housing portions and two sealing lips are provided with varying spacing and varying width which would reasonably include a distance between the first seal lip and the second seal lip which is smaller than a width of the first seal lip (Braun, [0018-0019, 0021]), wherein the variations produce sealing lips that represent barriers to moisture and dirt and prevent moisture and dirt from penetrating into the interior space of the battery housing in a particularly reliable manner (Braun, [0019]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide spacing between the seal lips of Fomen which would maximize the sealing capability of the seals as taught in Braun and which would reasonably include a distance between the first seal lip and the second seal lip which is smaller than a width of the first seal lip as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan and as doing so would amount to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fomen et al. (WO 2020030614 A1 - Machine Translation referenced for citations), hereinafter "Fomen" in view of Kim et al. (US 20190341590 A1), hereinafter "Kim" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Xu et al. (CN 207425965 U - Machine Translation referenced for citation), hereinafter "Xu". Fomen, Kim and Xu et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery housings.
In regard to Claims 13 and 18, Fomen et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the battery pack according to claim 1. While Fomen provides this housing it is silent as to the material or thickness.
However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of selecting a material and thickness of the two piece sealed housing as taught in Xu et al. which discloses a beneficial two piece battery pack housing which comprises a seal and is a metallic material at 0.8mm thick with the benefit of ensuring the reliability and safety of the structure (Xu, Abstract, [34]), which anticipates the claimed ranges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a two piece battery pack housing with seal formed of metal and 0.8mm thick as taught in Xu et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectations of achieving the benefits taught in Xu and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fomen et al. (WO 2020030614 A1 - Machine Translation referenced for citations), hereinafter "Fomen" in view of Kim et al. (US 20190341590 A1), hereinafter "Kim" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Fu et al. (CN 217768539 U - Machine Translation referenced for citation), hereinafter "Fu". Fomen, Kim and Fu et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery housings.
In regard to Claims 14 and 19, Fomen et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the battery pack according to claim 1. While Fomen provides this housing it is silent as to the material or thickness.
However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of selecting a material and thickness of the two piece sealed housing as taught in Fu et al. which discloses a beneficial two piece battery pack housing which comprises a seal and is a plastic material at 1.3mm thick with the benefit of providing simple structure is light and has excellent mechanical strength (Fu, Abstract, [6-7, 53]), which anticipates the claimed ranges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a two piece battery pack housing with seal formed of plastic and 1.3mm thick as taught in Fu et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectations of achieving the benefits taught in Fu and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fomen et al. (WO 2020030614 A1 - Machine Translation referenced for citations), hereinafter "Fomen" in view of Kim et al. (US 20190341590 A1), hereinafter "Kim" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Brazell et al. (US 20050058890 A1), hereinafter "Brazell". Fomen, Kim and Brazell et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery housings.
In regard to Claim 15, Fomen et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses the battery pack according to claim 1. While Fomen provides this assembly as a battery housing it is silent as to the housing being provided for a battery pack, however, the skilled artisan of Fomen et al. would be well aware of the use of a housing with at least two housing portions and a sealing unit to house a battery pack as taught in Kim et al. which discloses a beneficial battery pack with an improved sealing force, the battery pack including: a lower case having a space therein and having a groove portion formed to extend along a certain width of an outer top surface; an upper case arranged on the lower case; a battery unit accommodated in an internal space of the lower case and including a plurality of battery cells; and a sealing member inserted into the groove portion to be located between the upper case and the lower case (Kim, Abstract).
Further, while Foman and Kim disclose housings capable for use with battery packs they are silent as to the battery pack being interchangeable. However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of such packs used in two-part housings with sealing members as taught in Brazell et al. which discloses a beneficial and interchangeable battery pack in a two-piece housing (Brazell, Abstract, [0027]), which is a common variation of battery pack known to the skilled artisan. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the housing of Fomen to house an interchangeable battery pack as taught in Brazell et al. as doing so would be an obvious variation to try and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known use of a housing for another to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights