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 Status
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-15, 17-19, 21 and 23 are under examination.
Claims 2-3, 6-7, 16, 20 and 22 are canceled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-14, 17-19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nierhoff et al. (WO2018029167 A1 with priority date of February 15th, 2018 as cited in IDS and using U.S. PGPub US 2019/0221797 A1 as English version), hereinafter Nierhoff, in view of Matecki (U.S. PGPub US 2019/0081298 A1 as previously cited), hereinafter Matecki, or in the alternative in view of Wang et al. (CN207097927 U and using Machine Translation as English version), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Nierhoff discloses a battery box (1) for accommodating at least one battery (2) for an electric vehicle, comprising:
an externally surrounding frame (3) establishing a periphery adapted for connection to an electric vehicle body (i.e., at least connecting profile ref. 14 to connect the battery housing to the body of the vehicle which surrounds the case ref. 2, etc., as discussed in [0041] and as shown in Fig. 4a, lacking any further structural distinction thereof as to said frame, also see [0042], [0044]-[0045], [0064], Fig. 5a),
a base (4) supporting the at least one battery (2) inside the periphery (i.e., at least one first floor ref. 4 which provides an interior region ref. 5 for the battery elements, etc., as disclosed in [0037] and second floor ref. 15 which is arranged spaced below the first floor ref. 4 and defines a space R between itself and the first floor ref. 4, etc., as disclosed in [0042], and as shown in Fig. 4a, such that the first/second floor(s) at least provide said base, lacking any further distinction thereof as to said base, also see [0001], [0007], [0011], [0025], [0040], [0042]-[0045], [0047], Fig. 5a),
said base (4) comprising more than one base layer (6, 7), with each base layer arranged at a distance from each other to form a base cavity (8) therebetween (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0042] whereby the second floor ref. 15 which is arranged spaced below the first floor ref. 4 and defines a space R between itself and the first floor ref. 4, etc., such that said space R is at least a base cavity as shown in Fig. 4a, lacking any further structural distinction thereof, also see [0011], [0013], [0017]-[0018], [0042]-[0045], [0047], Fig. 5a),
wherein one of the base layers is a lower base layer (6) and another of the base layers is an upper base layer (7) (i.e., at least one first floor ref. 4 which provides an interior region ref. 5 for the battery elements, etc., as disclosed in [0037] and second floor ref. 15 which is arranged spaced below the first floor ref. 4 and defines a space R between itself and the first floor ref. 4, etc., as disclosed in [0042], such that said first floor is at least an upper base layer, and said second floor is at least a lower base layer as shown in Fig. 4a, lacking any further distinction thereof as to said lower/upper base layer(s), also see [0001], [0007], [0011], [0025], [0040], [0042]-[0045], [0047], Fig. 5a),
and wherein the lower base layer (6) projects outwards relative to the upper base layer (7) that faces the at least one battery (2) and extends below the externally surrounding frame (3) (See Annotated Figs. 4a-b), such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that the upper base layer (7) (i.e., at least first floor ref. 4) at least faces the at least one battery (2) so as to provide an interior region ref. 5 for the battery elements, etc., as disclosed in [0037]. Furthermore, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the lower base layer (6) (i.e., at least second floor ref. 15) at least extends below the externally surrounding frame (3) (i.e., at least connecting profile ref. 14 including ref. 14.4, etc.) as shown in Annotated Fig. 4a, and lacking any further structural distinction thereof.
Nierhoff further discloses a surrounding frame reinforcement element (5) that is a solid material that has a cross-sectional height (h) and a cross-sectional width (b), wherein the frame reinforcement element (5) is arranged inside a portion of the base cavity (8) directly underneath the frame (3) in order to reinforce the externally surrounding frame (3) (i.e., at least space provided between the first and second floors defines a distance or a height between the two floors, whereby according to one embodiment, only part of the height, for example half of the height, is used for the longitudinal reinforcing elements, and the other half of the height for the transverse reinforcing elements, etc., as disclosed in [0017] and [0044]-[0045] and Annotated Fig. 4a-b, for example, and such that the skilled artisan would appreciate said longitudinal and/or transverse reinforcing elements are at least a surrounding frame reinforcement element(s) having a cross-sectional height and cross-sectional width (b) that is arranged underneath the frame so as to be provided between the first and second floors as discussed above, and such that half of the height is at least a cross-sectional height (h) and since Nierhoff discloses in [0016] the one or more longitudinal reinforcing elements are each formed so as to be continuous or multipiece in the longitudinal direction (in relation to the installation position of the battery housing in the direction of travel), and/or the one or more transverse reinforcing elements are each formed so as to be continuous or multipiece in the transverse direction (in relation to the installation position of the battery housing transversely to the direction of travel), etc., this at least provides a cross-sectional width (b) so as to be continuous and/or multipiece in the transverse/longitudinal direction(s), lacking any further structural distinction thereof as to said surrounding frame reinforcement element, cross-sectional height (h), cross-sectional width (b), etc., also see [0010]-[0011], [0014]-[0018], [0020]-[0024], [0028], [0042], Figs. 4a, 5a).
Furthermore, Nierhoff discloses in [0014] the terms “longitudinal reinforcing element” and/or “transverse reinforcing element” mean in particular a profile made of a sheet metal, preferably sheet steel, etc., whereby the cross-section of the reinforcing elements may be adapted individually and optimally to the requirements imposed, such as rectangular profiles, etc., which at least provides a surrounding frame reinforcement element (5) that is a solid material such as a sheet metal material, etc.
As discussed above, since Nierhoff discloses in [0016] the one or more longitudinal reinforcing elements are each formed so as to be continuous or multipiece in the longitudinal direction (in relation to the installation position of the battery housing in the direction of travel), and/or the one or more transverse reinforcing elements are each formed so as to be continuous or multipiece in the transverse direction (in relation to the installation position of the battery housing transversely to the direction of travel), etc., this at least provides the cross-sectional width (b) of the frame reinforcement element (5) extends to a distance that corresponds to or is longer than the full extent of the width of the upper surface of the frame (3) (i.e., at least longitudinal and/or transverse reinforcing element(s) at least possess a cross-sectional width (b) that is longer than a width of the upper surface of the frame ref. 14, such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that since the at least longitudinal and/or transverse reinforcing elements are each formed so as to be continuous or multipiece in the longitudinal and/or transverse direction, this at least provides said reinforcement element(s) as a continuous and/or multipiece extend a distance that is longer than the full extent of the width of the upper surface of the frame ref. 14 (e.g., see Annotated Figs. 4a-b, also see Annotated Fig. 1), and lacking any further structural distinction thereof (also see [0015]-[0021], [0044]-[0045], Figs. 4a, 5a).
Furthermore, since Nierhoff discloses in [0016] the one or more longitudinal reinforcing elements are each formed so as to be continuous or multipiece in the longitudinal direction (in relation to the installation position of the battery housing in the direction of travel), and/or the one or more transverse reinforcing elements are each formed so as to be continuous or multipiece in the transverse direction (in relation to the installation position of the battery housing transversely to the direction of travel), etc., this at least provides the solid material of the frame reinforcement element (5) (i.e., at least longitudinal and/or transverse reinforcing element(s), such as the longitudinal reinforcement elements ref. 16 as shown in Fig. 4a) is a full cross section that completely fills the base cavity (8) portion (i.e., at least fill H/2 of space R) that is between the base layers (6, 7) (i.e., first and second floors as discussed above) that is underneath the frame (3), such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that since the at least longitudinal and/or transverse reinforcing elements are each formed so as to be continuous or multipiece in the longitudinal and/or transverse direction, this at least provides said reinforcement element(s) such as a continuous or multipiece reinforcement elements completely fills the base cavity that is underneath the frame ref. 14 (i.e., such as H/2 of space R) so as to use H/2 of the space between the first and second floors, and lacking any further structural distinction thereof (also see [0015]-[0021], [0044]-[0045], Figs. 4a, 5a).
Furthermore, Nierhoff discloses in [0014] the terms “longitudinal reinforcing element” and/or “transverse reinforcing element” mean in particular a profile made of a sheet metal, preferably sheet steel, etc., whereby the cross-section of the reinforcing elements may be adapted individually and optimally to the requirements imposed, such as rectangular profiles, etc., the skilled artisan would appreciate that this at least provides a full cross section that completely fills the base cavity (8) portion, etc., so that the reinforcing elements may be adapted individually and optimally to the requirements imposed, such as rectangular profiles, etc.
In addition, and as put forth by the examiner, since a full cross section that completely fills the base cavity (8) portion that is between the base layers (6,7) is broad in scope as claimed, the skilled artisan would appreciate, lacking any frame of reference for said cross section, that the prior art Nierhoff at least meets the limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation (See the Annotated Fig. 4b below for said full cross section, etc.).
Nierhoff further discloses in [0042] the longitudinal reinforcing elements ref. 16 may be connected preferably by substance bonding to the floor ref. 4, and the transverse reinforcing elements ref. 17 may be connected preferably by substance bonding to the floor ref. 15, etc., which at least provides the solid material of the frame reinforcement element (5) (i.e., at least longitudinal and/or transverse reinforcing elements as discussed above) are at least in contact with both the lower base layer (6) and the upper base layer (7) in the portion of the base cavity (8) that is underneath the frame (3) (i.e., at least first floor and/or second floor as discussed), lacking any further structural and/or chemical distinction thereof, (also see [0014], [0043], [0045], Figs. 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a).
Although, Nierhoff is silent as to a surrounding frame reinforcement element (5) that is a solid weldable material that is welded to at least one of the lower base layer (6) or the upper base layer (7), since Nierhoff discloses the surround frame reinforcement element that is a solid material connected to at least one of the lower base layer or upper base layer as discussed above, this at least provides an identical product as claimed, such that the product itself does not depend on its method (e.g., welding) (MPEP 2113, I., II.).
However, Nierhoff appears silent as to the lower base layer extends below the externally surrounding frame to a distance that corresponds to the full extent of the width of the upper surface of the surrounding frame. Furthermore, Nierhoff is silent as to a surrounding frame reinforcement element (5) that is a solid weldable material that is welded to at least one of the lower base layer (6) or the upper base layer (7).
Matecki teaches a vehicle battery tray with tubular peripheral wall (Title). Matecki further teaches the lower base layer extends below the externally surrounding frame to a distance that corresponds to the full extent of the width of the upper surface of the surrounding frame (See Annotated Fig. 15), also see [0006]-[0007], [0031], Fig. 1, [0033], [0037], [0040]-[0041], [0048], [0051]-[0052]).
Matecki further teaches in [0037] the attachment of the perimeter wall ref. 20 to the floor plate ref. 18 may be done by welding, etc., or other similar attachment interface that is generally adapted to form a sealed attachment seam that is impervious to liquid and gas, etc., which at least provides a surrounding frame reinforcement element (5) that is a solid weldable material that is welded to at least one of the lower base layer (6) or the upper base layer (7) (also see Fig. 5), lacking any further distinction thereof.
Matecki further teaches in [0002] the present invention generally relates to vehicle battery support structures, and more particularly to structural components for holding and supporting protected batteries, such as battery packs or modules or the like for electric and hybrid-electric vehicles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Nierhoff with the teachings of Matecki, whereby battery box including the upper/lower base layer(s), surrounding frame reinforcement element(s), solid material, substance bonding, etc., as disclosed by Nierhoff further includes the lower base layer extends below the externally surrounding frame to a distance that corresponds to the full extent of the width of the upper surface of the surrounding frame, as well as a surrounding frame reinforcement element that is a solid weldable material that is welded to at least one of the lower base layer or the upper base layer as taught by Matecki so as to provide battery support structures, such as structural components for holding and supporting protected batteries.
In the alternative, Wang teaches a battery box (Title). Wang further teaches in [0011] the reinforcement body further includes a filler, the additional cavity is filled with the filler, etc., whereby as taught in [0012] the filler is a solid structure, etc., and further teaches in [0021] the battery box provided in the present application includes a bottom plate, a frame and a reinforcement body, whereby at least one of the bottom plate and the frame has at least one cavity inside and the reinforcement body is arranged in the at least one cavity, etc., which at least provides the frame reinforcement element comprises solid material and completely fills the base cavity (See Figs. 3-5 and 7-8), lacking any further distinction thereof, also see ([0008], [0015]-[0019], [0021], [0049]-[0057], [0060], [0063]).
Wang further teaches in [0007] the present application provides a battery case to solve the problem that the existing battery case has poor strength and rigidity, resulting in poor anti-extrusion ability, anti-vibration ability and anti-collision ability of the battery case. Wang further teaches in [0060] the filler ref. 32 has good buffering performance, and the above structure forms a sandwich-like structure of metal-reinforcement layer ref. 31 filler ref. 32, whereby the reinforcement body ref. 30 of this structure further improves its ability to resist and buffer external forces on the basis of the reinforcement body ref. 30, etc., so that the anti-extrusion ability, anti-vibration ability and anti-collision ability of the base plate ref. 20 or the frame ref. 10 having this structure are further improved.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combined teachings of Nierhoff and Matecki with the teachings of Wang, whereby battery box including the upper/lower base layer(s), surrounding frame reinforcement element(s), etc., as disclosed by the combined teachings of Nierhoff and Matecki further includes the frame reinforcement element comprises solid material and completely fills the base cavity as taught by Wang so as to provide the ability to resist and buffer external forces so that the anti-extrusion ability, anti-vibration ability and anti-collision ability of the base plate, frame, etc., having this structure are further improved.
PNG
media_image1.png
617
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 4a-b (Nierhoff)
PNG
media_image2.png
776
1346
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 (Nierhoff)
PNG
media_image3.png
583
819
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 15 (Matecki)
Regarding claim 4, Nierhoff discloses the battery box (1) as discussed above in claim 1. Since Nierhoff discloses in [0037] the battery housing ref. 1 serves to receive battery elements (not shown) and may in particular be used for a vehicle and arranged in the region of the vehicle floor, etc., such that the battery housing ref. 1 comprises a case ref. 2 which is formed by a frame ref. 7 composed of one or more profiles ref. 3 and at least one first floor ref. 4 which provides an interior region ref. 5 for the battery elements, etc., this at least provides a base of the battery (1) establishes a first plane (i.e., at least battery element) so as to be arranged in the region of the vehicle floor (See Annotated Fig. 4a above in claim 1). Furthermore, Nierhoff discloses the frame reinforcement element (5) is arranged in a second plane underneath the first plane of the base of the battery (2) (See Annotated Fig. 4a above in claim 1), lacking any further distinction thereof, (also see [0010]-[0012], [0014]-[0018], [0020]-[0024], [0028], [0042], Figs. 4a, 5a).
Regarding claim 5, Nierhoff discloses the battery box (1) as discussed above in claim 1. Nierhoff further discloses in [0044] the lower edge region of the profile ref. 14.4 is in particular connected peripherally tightly to the edge region of the second floor ref. 15, etc., which at least provides the frame (3) (i.e., at least connecting profile ref. 14 including ref. 14.4 as shown in Fig. 4a) adjoins at least one base layer (6, 7) (i.e., at least adjoins second floor so as to be connected peripherally tightly) from the group, and lacking any further distinction thereof.
Regarding claim 8, Nierhoff discloses the battery box (1) as discussed above in claim 1. However, Nierhoff is silent as to the frame (3) is made by a material shaping method selected from the group consisting of: extrusion, roll forming and edge profiling.
Since Nierhoff discloses the frame as discussed above in claim 1, this provides an identical product as that claimed, such that the method of making said frame is not commensurate in scope with the product as claimed (MPEP 2113, I., II.).
Regarding claim 9, Nierhoff discloses the battery box (1) as discussed above in claim 1. Nierhoff discloses the base (4) (i.e., at least first/second floor(s) refs. 4 and 15 as discussed above in claim 1) defines end faces (18) (See Annotated Fig. 4a above in claim 1) and the frame (3) (i.e., at least connecting profile 14 including ref. 14.4) covers the end faces (18) of the base (4) (See Annotated Fig. 4a above in claim 1), such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that since end faces is broad in scope as claimed, the limitation is met, lacking any further structural distinction thereof as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Nierhoff discloses the battery box (1) as discussed above in claim 1. Nierhoff further discloses the frame (3) (i.e., at least connecting profile ref. 14 as a one-piece profile ref. 14.4 as disclosed in [0044]-[0045]) of the battery box (1) is formed by a hollow profile (See Annotated Figs. 4a-b above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Nierhoff discloses the battery box (1) as discussed above in claim 10. Nierhoff discloses in [0044] the longitudinal reinforcing elements ref. 16 and transverse reinforcing elements ref. 17, which are arranged so as to be continuous on different planes inside the space R, but the transverse reinforcing elements ref. 17 run in the upper plane (H/2), etc., whereby the lower edge region of the profile ref. 14.4 is in particular connected peripherally tightly to the edge region of the second floor ref. 15 or is in contact therewith, etc., which at least provides at least one transverse beam (16) and at least one longitudinal beam (17) are arranged in the frame (3), so as to be within the space between the first/second floors with the connecting profile (i.e., at least frame) peripherally tightly connected to the edge region of the second floor (See Annotated Figs. 4a-b above in claim 1), etc., and lacking any further structural distinction thereof.
Regarding claim 12, Nierhoff discloses the battery box (1) as discussed above in claim 1. Nierhoff further discloses in [0015] stiffening elements (longitudinal and/or transverse) may alternatively or additionally be arranged between the first and second floors, etc., and further discloses in [0044] the longitudinal reinforcing elements ref. 16 and transverse reinforcing elements ref. 17, which are arranged so as to be continuous on different planes inside the space R, but the transverse reinforcing elements ref. 17 run in the upper plane (H/2) and protrude beyond the dimensions of the case ref. 2 (Fig. 4b), and the protruding region or end ref. 17.3 of the transverse reinforcing element ref. 17 protrudes into the connecting profile ref. 14 and is connected preferably by substance bonding to the connecting profile ref. 14 so that a degree of stability of the battery housing ref. 1 can be guaranteed, and it is sufficient to design the connecting profile ref. 14 merely as a one-piece profile ref. 14.4, etc., which at least provides at least one transverse beam (16) and/or at least one longitudinal beam (17) (i.e., longitudinal/transverse reinforcing elements) in the base cavity (8) (i.e., at least space R) between the base layers (6, 7) or on a base layer (6, 7) (i.e., at least between and/or on first/second floors) configured to stiffen the frame reinforcement element (5), such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that said longitudinal and/or transverse beam at least are configured to stiffen the frame reinforcement element (5) so that a degree of stability of the battery housing can be guaranteed, lacking any further distinction thereof (also see [0016], [0022], [0045], Figs. 4a-b).
Furthermore, since Nierhoff provides an identical and/or substantially identical product to that claimed, properties and/or functions such as configured to stiffen the frame reinforcement element (5) are presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01, I., II.), and lacking any further structural distinction thereof.
Regarding claim 13, Nierhoff discloses the battery box (1) as discussed above in claim 1. Nierhoff further discloses in [0020] a positive influence on the weight of the battery housing may be achieved if, according to one embodiment, the longitudinal reinforcing elements have different material thickness in the longitudinal direction, and/or the transverse reinforcing elements have a different material thickness in the transverse direction, etc. wherein the material thickness of the reinforcing element is selected to be thicker in the edge region of the case than in the central region, etc., and further discloses in [0021] a further possibility of optimization lies in that according to one embodiment, the longitudinal reinforcing elements have a variable height and/or width in the longitudinal direction, and/or the transverse reinforcing elements have a variable height and/or width in the transverse direction, etc., which at least provides the frame reinforcement element (5) (i.e., at least longitudinal and/or transverse reinforcing elements as discussed above in claim 1) defines at least one cavity, such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that longitudinal and/or transverse reinforcing elements having a variable height and/or material thickness at least defines at least one cavity so as to have a variable height and/or material thickness, lacking any further distinction thereof as to said cavity (also see [0022]-[0024], See Figs. 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a).
Furthermore, Nierhoff discloses in [0043] in order to allow the coolant line ref. 20 to be substantially continuous from front to back, before connecting the transverse reinforcing elements ref. 17, corresponding cutouts ref. 17.2 are made in the respective individual elements ref. 17.1, which at least provides the frame reinforcement element (i.e., at least transverse reinforcing element) defines at least one through-hole, such that a cutout is at least a through-hole, (also see [0024], [0042], Figs. 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a), lacking any further structural distinction thereof.
Furthermore, Nierhoff discloses in [0038] the longitudinal stiffening elements ref. 8 each have two openings ref. 8.1 for passage of mounting bushes ref. 10, etc., which at least provides the frame reinforcement element (5) defines at least one through hole, lacking any further distinction thereof as to said reinforcement element.
Regarding claim 14, Nierhoff discloses the battery box (1) as discussed above in claim 1. Nierhoff further discloses in [0037] the first floor ref. 4 is made for example from sheet steel, etc., which at least provides at least one base layer (6, 7) is made of a metal material (also see [0014], [0025]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 17, Nierhoff discloses the battery box (1) as discussed above in claim 1. Nierhoff further discloses in [0044] the lower edge region of the profile ref. 14.4 is in particular connected peripherally tightly to the edge region of the second floor ref. 15 or is in contact therewith, which at least provides the frame (3) (i.e., connecting profile 14 including ref. 14.4) of the battery box (1) and at least one base layer (6, 7) (i.e., at least second floor ref. 15) are coupled together with a positive fit from the group, lacking any further distinction thereof, also see Figs. 4a-b, 5a.
Regarding claim 18, Nierhoff discloses the battery box (1) as discussed above in claim 1. However, Nierhoff is silent as to the base layers (6, 7) are integrally bonded to each other and/or are coupled together with a positive fit.
The combined teachings of Nierhoff and Matecki, or in the alternative in view of Wang, disclose the battery box as discussed above in claim 1. Matecki further teaches a vehicle battery tray with tubular peripheral wall (Title). Matecki further teaches in [0046] a process of forming the perimeter wall ref. 20, etc., whereby a straight roll formed beam ref. 58 may be provided having a generally rectangular cross section shape, such as shown in Fig. 7, whereby the roll formed beam ref. 58 may then be trimmed with a laser or other cutting device, at step ref. 60, to provide notches ref. 62 along the beam ref. 58 at the desired bending points, etc., as shown in Fig. 8A, and whereby the notches ref. 62 at the top and bottom walls may also include interlocking features ref. 64 to provide a more surface area along the weld seam and increased stability of the seam, whereby after the notches are formed, the beam is bent to close the notches ref. 62 along the beam ref. 58, such as shown in Fig. 8B, etc., such that the closed notches ref. 62 are fixed in the closed position such as by using a laser welding process, etc., as shown in Fig. 8C. Matecki further teaches in [0004]-[0006] a perimeter wall for a vehicle battery tray that may comprise a tubular structure formed to extend along more than a single linear extent of the perimeter wall, such as around three sides or around the entire periphery of the battery tray, whereby such a construction can increase energy absorption and reduce intrusion distances for lateral vehicle impacts, along with reducing seams extending along or into the containment area of the battery tray.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combined teachings of Nierhoff and Matecki, or in the alternative in view of Wang, further with the teachings of Matecki, whereby the battery box including the base layers as disclosed by the combined teachings of Nierhoff and Matecki, or in the alternative in view of Wang, further include the base layers are integrally bonded to each other and/or are coupled together with a positive fit (e.g., welded by laser welding process) as taught by Matecki so that such a construction can increase energy absorption and reduce intrusion distances for lateral vehicle impacts, along with reducing seams extending along or into the containment area of the battery tray.
Regarding claim 19, Nierhoff discloses the battery box (1) as discussed above in claim 1. Nierhoff further discloses in [0043] a cooling system or media-carrying line ref. 20 connected to a cooling system (or cooling elements) may be provided inside the space R below the first floor ref. 4 and connected thereto, etc., which at least provides a cooling unit to dissipate heat generated by of the at least one battery (2) arranged in the base cavity (8) (i.e., space R as discussed above in at least claim 2), such that a cooling system (or cooling element) is at least a cooling unit, lacking any further distinction thereof as to said cooling unit (also see [0024], also see Figs. 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a). Since Nierhoff discloses a cooling unit (i.e., at least cooling system and/or cooling element), which is identical to that claimed, properties and/or functions such as dissipate heat generated by of the at least one battery are presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 23, Nierhoff discloses the battery box (1) as discussed above in claim 1. Furthermore, since Nierhoff discloses in [0016] the one or more longitudinal reinforcing elements are each formed so as to be continuous or multipiece in the longitudinal direction (in relation to the installation position of the battery housing in the direction of travel), and/or the one or more transverse reinforcing elements are each formed so as to be continuous or multipiece in the transverse direction (in relation to the installation position of the battery housing transversely to the direction of travel), etc., this at least provides the frame reinforcement element (5) (i.e., at least longitudinal and/or transverse reinforcing element(s), such as the longitudinal reinforcement elements ref. 16 as shown in Fig. 4a) fills the base cavity (8) (i.e., at least fill H/2 of space R) that is between the base layers (6, 7) (i.e., first and second floors as discussed above) that is solely below the width of the frame (3), such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that since the at least longitudinal and/or transverse reinforcing elements are each formed so as to be continuous or multipiece in the longitudinal and/or transverse direction, this at least provides said reinforcement element(s) such as a continuous or multipiece reinforcement elements completely fills the base cavity that is underneath the frame ref. 14 (i.e., such as H/2 of space R) so as to use H/2 of the space between the first and second floors, and lacking any further structural distinction thereof (also see [0014]-[0021], [0044]-[0045], Figs. 4a, 5a).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nierhoff in view of Matecki, or in the alternative in view of Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pohl et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2018/0215282 A1), hereinafter Pohl.
Regarding claim 15, Nierhoff discloses the battery box (1) as discussed above in claim 1. However, Nierhoff is silent as to at least one base layer (6, 7) has a maximum thickness of about 0.8 mm to 2 mm.
The combined teachings of Nierhoff and Matecki, or in the alternative Wang, disclose the battery box as discussed above in claim 1. Pohl teaches a battery holder for a vehicle (Title). Pohl further teaches in [0044] the thickness of the base plate can be in the area of 1.8 mm to 4.0 mm, which is a range of a base layer (i.e., at least base plate) that overlaps the claimed range of at least one base layer (6,7) has a maximum thickness of about 0.8 mm to 2 mm, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.). Pohl further teaches in [0044] in comparison with the cover plate the base plate can have a greater thickness, since the base plate has to meet higher requirements with regard to outer action, for example, the penetration of outer parts or gravel impact.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combined teachings of Nierhoff and Matecki, or in the alternative in view of Wang, with the teachings of Pohl, whereby the battery box including the more than one base layer as discussed above in claim 1 and disclosed by the combined teachings of Nierhoff and Matecki, or in the alternative in view of Wang, further includes the thickness of the base plate (i.e., at least base layer) as taught by Pohl, such that the base plate can have a greater thickness, since the base plate has to meet higher requirements with regard to outer action, for example, the penetration of outer parts or gravel impact.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nierhoff in view of Matecki, or in the alternative in view of Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoecker et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2012/0148892 A1), hereinafter Hoecker.
Regarding claim 21, Nierhoff discloses the battery box (1) as discussed above in claim 1. However, Nierhoff is silent as to the frame reinforcement element (5) has a material thickness of at least 3 mm.
The combined teachings of Nierhoff and Matecki, or in the alternative Wang, disclose the battery box as discussed above in claim 1. Hoecker teaches a housing for electrical power cells in electrically driven automotive vehicles (Title). Hoecker further teaches in [0007] Fig. 2 shows another vertical cut through version of the housing in sandwich structure, in side view, whereby this version uses a support layer having arranged cover layers on both sides. Hoecker further teaches in [0032] preferred layer thicknesses for the support layer (i.e., at least frame reinforcement element) are particularly preferably from 2 to 15 mm, etc., which is a range that overlaps the claimed range of the frame reinforcement element (5) has a material thickness of at least 3 mm, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.). Hoecker further teaches in [0011] the housing according to the instant invention leads to clear advantages, whereby the mechanical strength of the housing can be further improved, such as if the cover layer of metal is arranged on both sides of the support layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combined teachings of Nierhoff and Matecki, or in the alternative in view of Wang, further with the teachings of Hoecker, whereby the battery box including the base, frame reinforcement element, etc., as discussed above in claim 1, further includes the thickness range as taught by Hoecker so that the mechanical strength of the housing can be further improved.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue Page 7, “The profile 3 does not facilitate the joining of the battery housing to a car body. Only the connecting profile 14 serves this function”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, whereby as put forth in the current 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of record, Nierhoff discloses an externally surrounding frame (3) establishing a periphery adapted for connection to an electric vehicle body (i.e., at least connecting profile ref. 14 to connect the battery housing to the body of the vehicle which surrounds the case ref. 2, etc., as discussed in [0041] and as shown in Fig. 4a, lacking any further structural distinction thereof as to said frame, also see [0042], [0044]-[0045], [0064], Fig. 5a). The examiner asserts that the connecting profile ref. 14 is at least the claimed externally surrounding frame under broadest reasonable interpretation so as to connect the battery housing to the body of the vehicle.
Applicants further argue Page 7, “The second floor 15 does not extend below the connecting profile 14.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees, whereby as put forth in the current 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of record, Nierhoff discloses the lower base layer (6) projects outwards relative to the upper base layer (7) that faces the at least one battery (2) and extends below the externally surrounding frame (3) (See Annotated Figs. 4a-b above in the current rejection of record), such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that the upper base layer (7) (i.e., at least first floor ref. 4) at least faces the at least one battery (2) so as to provide an interior region ref. 5 for the battery elements, etc., as disclosed in [0037]. Furthermore, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the lower base layer (6) (i.e., at least second floor ref. 15) at least extends below the externally surrounding frame (3) (i.e., at least connecting profile ref. 14 including ref. 14.4, etc.) as shown in Annotated Fig. 4a, and lacking any further structural distinction thereof.
Applicants further argue Page 7, “Moreover, the reinforcing element 16 is not solid material that completely fills the base cavity (the full height “H”) between the first floor 4 and second floor 15. Even if the reinforcing element 16 were indicated to be solidly filled with a material that could be welded to either first floor 4 or second floor 15, such reinforcement element 16 does not comprise a full cross section of solid material between first floor 4 and second floor 15.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees, whereby as put forth in the current 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of record, since Nierhoff discloses in [0016] the one or more longitudinal reinforcing elements are each formed so as to be continuous or multipiece in the longitudinal direction (in relation to the installation position of the battery housing in the direction of travel), and/or the one or more transverse reinforcing elements are each formed so as to be continuous or multipiece in the transverse direction (in relation to the installation position of the battery housing transversely to the direction of travel), etc., this at least provides the solid material of the frame reinforcement element (5) (i.e., at least longitudinal and/or transverse reinforcing element(s), such as the longitudinal reinforcement elements ref. 16 as shown in Fig. 4a) is a full cross section that completely fills the base cavity (8) portion (i.e., at least fill H/2 of space R) that is between the base layers (6, 7) (i.e., first and second floors as discussed above) that is underneath the frame (3), such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that since the at least longitudinal and/or transverse reinforcing elements are each formed so as to be continuous or multipiece in the longitudinal and/or transverse direction, this at least provides said reinforcement element(s) such as a continuous or multipiece reinforcement elements completely fills the base cavity that is underneath the frame ref. 14 (i.e., such as H/2 of space R) so as to use H/2 of the space between the first and second floors, and lacking any further structural distinction thereof (also see [0015]-[0021], [0044]-[0045], Figs. 4a, 5a).
Furthermore, since Nierhoff discloses in [0014] the terms “longitudinal reinforcing element” and/or “transverse reinforcing element” mean in particular a profile made of a sheet metal, preferably sheet steel, etc., whereby the cross-section of the reinforcing elements may be adapted individually and optimally to the requirements imposed, such as rectangular profiles, etc., the skilled artisan would appreciate that this at least provides a full cross section that completely fills the base cavity (8) portion, etc., so that the reinforcing elements may be adapted individually and optimally to the requirements imposed, such as rectangular profiles, etc.
In addition, and as put forth by the examiner, since a full cross section that completely fills the base cavity (8) portion that is between the base layers (6,7) is broad in scope as claimed, the skilled artisan would appreciate lacking any frame of reference for said cross section that the prior art Nierhoff at least meets the limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation (See the Annotated Fig. 4b below for said full cross section, etc.).
PNG
media_image1.png
617
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zoomed Annotated Figure 4b (Nierhoff)
Applicants further argue Page 9, “Nierhoff lacks the above-recited combination of features (a) - (f). In the claimed invention, the frame (3) establishes the periphery that is adapted for connection to the electric vehicle body. The profile 3 in Nierhoff is not connected to the electric vehicle body. The profile 14 is what is used by Nierhoff to connect to the vehicle body. But the profile 3 of Nierhoff does not have a lower base layer that extends below the profile 14. The second floor 15 of Nierhoff does extend below the profile 3 (sidewall of the case), but not below the profile 14.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees, whereby as put forth in the current 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of record, Nierhoff discloses an externally surrounding frame (3) establishing a periphery adapted for connection to an electric vehicle body (i.e., at least connecting profile ref. 14 to connect the battery housing to the body of the vehicle which surrounds the case ref. 2, etc., as discussed in [0041] and as shown in Fig. 4a, lacking any further structural distinction thereof as to said frame, also see [0042], [0044]-[0045], [0064], Fig. 5a). Therefore, the examiner does not rely upon ref. 3 of Nierhoff to meet said limitation, but rather relies upon ref. 14 as put forth by the examiner on the record to meet the claim limitation.
Furthermore, Annotated Fig. 4a of Nierhoff clearly shows that the second floor ref. 15 is below profile ref. 14, whereby it is shown that ref. 15 is attached underneath ref. 14. Therefore, the examiner asserts that Nierhoff meets the claim limitations under broadest reasonable interpretation, and lacking any further distinction thereof.
Applicants further argue Page 9, “In Nierhoff, the reinforcements 16, 17 and 18 are housed between the first floor 4 and the second floor 15 in cavity space(s), such as R, that are located below the case 2, but not below the profile 14 that is the structure that is adapted for connection to the vehicle body. There are no frame reinforcement elements underneath the profile 14 in Nierhoff.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees, whereby as put forth in the current 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of record, Nierhoff discloses in [0016] the one or more longitudinal reinforcing elements are each formed so as to be continuous or multipiece in the longitudinal direction (in relation to the installation position of the battery housing in the direction of travel), and/or the one or more transverse reinforcing elements are each formed so as to be continuous or multipiece in the transverse direction (in relation to the installation position of the battery housing transversely to the direction of travel), etc., this at least provides the solid material of the frame reinforcement element (5) (i.e., at least longitudinal and/or transverse reinforcing element(s), such as the longitudinal reinforcement elements ref. 16 as shown in Fig. 4a) is a full cross section that completely fills the base cavity (8) portion (i.e., at least fill H/2 of space R) that is between the base layers (6, 7) (i.e., first and second floors as discussed above) that is underneath the frame (3) (i.e., underneath frame ref. 14 as discussed above), such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that since the at least longitudinal and/or transverse reinforcing elements are each formed so as to be continuous or multipiece in the longitudinal and/or transverse direction, this at least provides said reinforcement element(s) such as a continuous or multipiece reinforcement elements completely fills the base cavity that is underneath the frame ref. 14 (i.e., such as H/2 of space R) so as to use H/2 of the space between the first and second floors, and lacking any further structural distinction thereof (also see [0015]-[0021], [0044]-[0045], Figs. 4a, 5a).
Applicants further argue Page 10, “The frame reinforcement element (5) is a "solid material" that "completely fills" the cavity, which is distinguished from the profiles or channels (reinforcement elements 16, 17) shown in Nierhoff. Nierhoff may weld the longitudinal reinforcement (16) to the second floor (15), but the longitudinal reinforcement is not a solid weldable material that completely fills the cavity between the two floors (4, 5). The reinforcement (16) is a channel member with an unfilled open space (R), not a "full cross section" of "solid weldable material" as required in claim 1 of the current application. The open channel is intended for the purpose of Nierhoff. The open channel completely differs from the structure claimed in the current application.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees, whereby as put forth in the current 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of record, since Nierhoff discloses in [0016] the one or more longitudinal reinforcing elements are each formed so as to be continuous or multipiece in the longitudinal direction (in relation to the installation position of the battery housing in the direction of travel), and/or the one or more transverse reinforcing elements are each formed so as to be continuous or multipiece in the transverse direction (in relation to the installation position of the battery housing transversely to the direction of travel), etc., this at least provides the solid material of the frame reinforcement element (5) (i.e., at least longitudinal and/or transverse reinforcing element(s), such as the longitudinal reinforcement elements ref. 16 as shown in Fig. 4a) is a full cross section that completely fills the base cavity (8) portion (i.e., at least fill H/2 of space R) that is between the base layers (6, 7) (i.e., first and second floors as discussed above) that is underneath the frame (3), such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that since the at least longitudinal and/or transverse reinforcing elements are each formed so as to be continuous or multipiece in the longitudinal and/or transverse direction, this at least provides said reinforcement element(s) such as a continuous or multipiece reinforcement elements completely fills the base cavity that is underneath the frame ref. 14 (i.e., such as H/2 of space R) so as to use H/2 of the space between the first and second floors, and lacking any further structural distinction thereof (also see [0015]-[0021], [0044]-[0045], Figs. 4a, 5a).
Furthermore, since Nierhoff discloses in [0014] the terms “longitudinal reinforcing element” and/or “transverse reinforcing element” mean in particular a profile made of a sheet metal, preferably sheet steel, etc., whereby the cross-section of the reinforcing elements may be adapted individually and optimally to the requirements imposed, such as rectangular profiles, etc., the skilled artisan would appreciate that this at least provides a full cross section that completely fills the base cavity (8) portion, etc., so that the reinforcing elements may be adapted individually and optimally to the requirements imposed, such as rectangular profiles, etc.
In addition, and as put forth by the examiner, since a full cross section that completely fills the base cavity (8) portion that is between the base layers (6,7) is broad in scope as claimed, the skilled artisan would appreciate lacking any frame of reference for said cross section that the prior art Nierhoff at least meets the limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation (See the Annotated Fig. 4b above for said full cross section, etc.).
As to applicants’ arguments regarding said solid weldable material, the combined teachings of Nierhoff and Matecki disclose the claim limitations with proper motivation, such that the battery box including the upper/lower base layer(s), surrounding frame reinforcement element(s), solid material, substance bonding, etc., as disclosed by Nierhoff further includes the lower base layer extends below the externally surrounding frame to a distance that corresponds to the full extent of the width of the upper surface of the surrounding frame, as well as a surrounding frame reinforcement element that is a solid weldable material that is welded to at least one of the lower base layer or the upper base layer as taught by Matecki so as to provide battery support structures, such as structural components for holding and supporting protected batteries.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants further argue Pages 10-11, “Matecki shows a vehicle battery tray with a perimeter wall of stacked multi-tubular reinforcement members 124. The reinforcement members 124 are hollow square tubes, with one stacked over the other. These tubes are not a solid weldable material as the "full cross section" of each of the tubes is hollow. If the top tube is comparable to the externally surrounding frame (3) establishing a periphery, the lower tube is not a surrounding frame reinforcement (5) comprising solid material that completely fills the space or cavity under the frame (3). Matecki's teaching is contrary to the structure of claim 1, which requires completely filling the space under the frame (30 with solid weldable material. Skilled persons confronted by the teachings of Nierhoff and Matecki would be more apt to install a channel reinforcement that is hollow (not filled with solid weldable material). Both the reinforcement (16) in Nierhoff and the tubular reinforcement members 124 in Matecki lack solid weldable material filling. Accordingly, claim 1 as amended patentably distinguishes from the purported combination of Nierhoff with Matecki.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees, whereby as put forth in the current 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of record, Nierhoff is simply silent as to a surrounding frame reinforcement element (5) that is a solid weldable material that is welded to at least one of the lower base layer (6) or the upper base layer (7).
The examiner asserts, that Nierhoff further discloses in [0042] the longitudinal reinforcing elements ref. 16 may be connected preferably by substance bonding to the floor ref. 4, and the transverse reinforcing elements ref. 17 may be connected preferably by substance bonding to the floor ref. 15, etc., which at least provides the solid material of the frame reinforcement element (5) (i.e., at least longitudinal and/or transverse reinforcing elements as discussed above) are at least in contact with both the lower base layer (6) and the upper base layer (7) in the portion of the base cavity (8) that is underneath the frame (3) (i.e., at least first floor and/or second floor as discussed), lacking any further structural and/or chemical distinction thereof, (also see [0014], [0043], [0045], Figs. 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a).
Therefore, although, Nierhoff is silent as to a surrounding frame reinforcement element (5) that is a solid weldable material that is welded to at least one of the lower base layer (6) or the upper base layer (7), since Nierhoff discloses the surround frame reinforcement element that is a solid material connected to at least one of the lower base layer or upper base layer as discussed above, this at least provides an identical product as claimed, such that the product itself does not depend on its method (e.g., welding) (MPEP 2113, I., II.).
Furthermore, as put forth in the current 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of record, the combined teachings of Nierhoff and Matecki disclose the claim limitations with proper motivation, such that the battery box including the upper/lower base layer(s), surrounding frame reinforcement element(s), solid material, substance bonding, etc., as disclosed by Nierhoff further includes the lower base layer extends below the externally surrounding frame to a distance that corresponds to the full extent of the width of the upper surface of the surrounding frame, as well as a surrounding frame reinforcement element that is a solid weldable material that is welded to at least one of the lower base layer or the upper base layer as taught by Matecki so as to provide battery support structures, such as structural components for holding and supporting protected batteries.
Therefore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., (filled with solid weldable material) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants further argue Page 11, “In contrast to Wang, claim 1 of the current application as amended specifies that the surrounding frame reinforcement element (5) is a solid weldable material that is welded to at least one of the lower base layer (6) or the upper base layer (7). Wang's fiber reinforced resins are not solid materials that can be welded. Such reins would be destroyed by a welding operation. Accordingly, even if skilled persons seeking to combine the teaching of Wang with Nierhoff (or with Nierhoff and Matecki) were to fill one of the Nierhoff or Matecki channels, such skilled persons are directed to use fiber-reinforced resins and not solid weldable materials that may be welded to append them to one of the base layers. Accordingly, claim 1 patentably distinguishes from the purported combination of Nierhoff and Wang as well as from the purported combination of Nierhoff (and Matecki) and Wang.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees, whereby as put forth by the examiner and discussed above, since a full cross section that completely fills the base cavity (8) portion that is between the base layers (6,7) is broad in scope as claimed, the skilled artisan would appreciate lacking any frame of reference for said cross section that the prior art Nierhoff at least meets the limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation (See the Annotated Fig. 4b above for said full cross section, etc.).
Furthermore, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the combined teachings of Nierhoff and Matecki disclose the claim limitations with proper motivation, such that the battery box including the upper/lower base layer(s), surrounding frame reinforcement element(s), solid material, substance bonding, etc., as disclosed by Nierhoff further includes the lower base layer extends below the externally surrounding frame to a distance that corresponds to the full extent of the width of the upper surface of the surrounding frame, as well as a surrounding frame reinforcement element that is a solid weldable material that is welded to at least one of the lower base layer or the upper base layer as taught by Matecki so as to provide battery support structures, such as structural components for holding and supporting protected batteries.
As to applicant’s arguments, “Wang's fiber reinforced resins are not solid materials that can be welded. Such reins would be destroyed by a welding operation. Accordingly, even if skilled persons seeking to combine the teaching of Wang with Nierhoff (or with Nierhoff and Matecki) were to fill one of the Nierhoff or Matecki channels, such skilled persons are directed to use fiber-reinforced resins and not solid weldable materials that may be welded to append them to one of the base layers.”, the examiner respectfully asserts that the claim is broad in scope, and requires no specific frame of reference for said cross section nor does it require a specific material for filling, etc. Furthermore, there is no evidence of record to provide what is explicitly and/or implicitly included nor is there evidence provided as to what is and is not weldable. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Nierhoff and Matecki (or in the alternative Wang) at least provide the limitations as claimed, lacking any further distinction thereof.
Therefore, in light of the amendments to the claims, a new grounds of rejection 35 U.SC. 103 is made in view of Nierhoff and Matecki, or in the alternative Wang, for claims 1, 4-5, 8-14, 17-19 and 23. See the above 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for the claims that depend therefrom.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Roehner et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2022/0223954) discloses a modular battery housing for mounting battery modules to one of a plurality of electric vehicles (Title), whereby as disclosed in [0036] referring to Fig. 4, the frame ref. 108 includes a pair of rails ref. 110 spaced apart from one another and a plurality of cross members ref. 112 coupleable to the rails ref. 110 to define a plurality of framed sections ref. 114, etc.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA PATRICK MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-2742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached on (571) 272-1330. 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.
/JOSHUA P MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727