DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Newly presented claim 23 is directed to a method and depends from a non-elected method claim. Claim 23 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 rejection of claim(s) 5-6 and 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bomphray (WO2018/007814) in view of Brandley et al. (WO 2021/034420) is withdrawn in view of the cancellation of claims 5-6 and the amendments to claims 8 and 11.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bomphray (WO2018/007814) in view of Brandley et al. (WO 2021/034420) and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0320657).
Bomphray discloses a fiber reinforced composite preform structure having a rectangular main portion with four rectangular side portions that are contiguous with and extending downward from each of the four edges of the main portion. The fiber reinforced structure forms an open-topped box structure (see Fig 6; pages 10-12). The reference teaches that the structure can be used as a battery casing (See p 23, lines 15-19). Bomphray also teaches the use of “elongate fibres”, which read on the claimed “continuous fiber reinforcements” (p 11, lines 1-17).
Bomphray teaches that a reinforcement member such as a metal stiffening member can be added to the preform structure prior to the formation of the open-topped box structure (see p.6, line 34-p.7, line 5; p. 20, lines 7-15). The reference does not specifically describe (1) a “metallic foil” bonded to the fiber reinforced layer such that it is on the exterior of the “interior space” of the box structure or (2) a top and/or bottom strengthening patch as required by claim 1.
With regard to the first noted feature, Brandley et al. disclose a structural composite for battery enclosures having face sheets of resin-fiber composite and a metal shielding foil applied thereto on the outside of the battery enclosure surface (see para [0064] and [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a metal foil layer as suggested by Brandley to the outer surface of the resin-fiber composition taught by Bomphray in order to provide reinforcement and shielding capacity .
With regard to the second noted limitation requiring a top/bottom strengthening patch at the corners of the cover structure, Wang et al. teaches that it was known in the battery enclosure art to use patches at the corners of a battery pack enclosure in order to reinforce the structure (see Figures 4-5 and [0003]-[0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to use strengthening patches overlapping the adjacent sides and the gap therebetween in the invention taught by Brandley et al. in order to more securely reinforce the corners. While Wang et al. shows an embodiment wherein the patches are placed on the outside of the battery container (see Figure 4), it would have been obvious to locate the patches on the inside area of the container taught by Brandley et al. in order to provide a smooth outer surface for the battery housing with a consistent clearance for surrounding structures.
It is also noted that the structure taught by Bomphray meets the newly added limitation of claim 1 requiring “adjacent lateral edges of neighboring ones of the side portions are separated by and define a gap” as shown in the following annotated Figure 6:
PNG
media_image1.png
261
297
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Brandley teaches the use of elongated fibers formed from carbon, aramid and glass having lengths that are preferably greater than 50 mm to impart increased stiffness to the composite (See para [0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose optimal fiber lengths and fiber stiffness for the composite layer taught by Bomphray depending on the desired size and stiffness of the battery casing structure taught therein.
With regard to claim 4, Brandley et al. teaches the use of metal shielding foil selected from a group including aluminum (see para [0068]). The reference does not disclose the thickness of the layer. However, it would have been obvious and within the level of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal thickness for the layer based on the desired degree of shielding and reinforcement.
With regard to claim 7, the portions 340 on the side portions of the box preform shown by Bomphray in Figure 6 are folded and attached to the adjacent side portion to formed a connecting portion bridging the gap in between and extending across the main portion along an edge thereof. These portions read on the claimed “strengthening patches.”
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bomphray (WO2018/007814) in view of Brandley et al. (WO 2021/034420) and Wang et al. (US 2022/0320657) and further in view of Balijepalli et al. (US 2022/0017685).
Bomphray discloses all of the features of the claimed invention except for the presence of the claimed additives in the epoxy resin taught therein.
Balijepalli et al. teaches that it was known in the art to add flame retardants, such as ammonium polyphosphate, to epoxy carbon fiber composites for use in battery enclosures (see para [0002], [0033], [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add flame retardants, such as ammonium polyphosphate, to the epoxy-fiber composition taught by Bomphray in view of Brandley et al. and Wang et al. in order to provide a flame retardant battery enclosure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 21-22 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. Claim 11 is allowable as written.
The closest prior art to Bomphray, Brandley et al. and Wang et al. fail to teach or suggest the structure set forth in claims 8 and 11 wherein the elongated voids present in the corner junctures are formed by the separated edges of two or more continuous fiber reinforced sheets disposed in plane with each other such that an edge and the neighboring edge define an elongated void, in combination with all of the additional features of the claims. The prior art to Brandley discloses honeycomb shaped void structures in a corner junction but does not teach or suggest the elongated voids as now claimed.
Newly added claims 21-22 require a perimeter flange which includes both the top strengthening patch and the bottom strengthening patch. Wang et al. suggests a strengthening patch applied to the surface portions of a battery container structure such that the patch covers the side portions and a flange portion of the battery container. However, the reference fails to teach adding both a surface strengthening patch and a top strengthening patch as claimed disposed between the fiber-reinforced inner resin layer and the outer metallic foil layer such that the patches used have a side profile with an S shape.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with regard to claims 1-2, 4 and 7.
Applicant argues that the claims amendments overcome the 103 rejection of the claims as being unpatentable over Bomphray in view of Brandley et al. However, an additional reference has been combined with Bomphray and Brandley to teach the newly added limitations directed to the top/bottom strengthening patch.
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).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY RICKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1514. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9-3pm EST.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785