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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-14, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pflueger et al. (DE 102018217083 A1, published 9 Apr 2020, paragraphs cited from the provided English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Pflueger et al. discloses a battery housing (1) for receiving at least one battery cell module, comprising: at least one housing part (21, 22) surrounding a housing interior (receiving space 3, [0045-0046]), having a film (inner wall element 4 and outer wall element 5, [0049]) composed of a metal ([0016, 0048]) arranged, at least in portions, on an outside of the at least one housing part (21, 22) facing away from the housing interior (3, see Figs. 1, 2, 4a), wherein the film has an encircling edge (outer wall element 5) and a surface disposed within the encircling edge (inner wall element 4) that faces the at least one housing part (21, 22), the film including a studded structure provided on the surface that includes a plurality of studs (spacer elements 11, 16) arranged spaced apart from one another and projecting from the surface of the film (4, 5), wherein the plurality of studs (11, 16) support themselves on the outside of the at least one housing part (21, 22, [0032-0034, 0038]; Figs. 4a-4d). Therefore, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Pflueger further discloses that the film (4, 5) is connected to the at least one housing part (21, 22) via the plurality of studs (11, 16), such that between the film (4, 5) and the at least one housing part (21, 22) at least one intermediate space (insulation space 121, 122, [0065, 0077]; Figs. 4a-4d) is provided. Therefore, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Pflueger further discloses that the at least one intermediate space (insulation space 121, 122) is at least partially filled with a thermal insulation (insulating material 150, [0077]). Therefore, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. Pflueger further discloses that the thermal insulation (insulating material 150) includes a foam material or a fibre fleece (aerogel foam, glass fibers, [0040, 0077]). Therefore, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Pflueger further discloses that the plurality of studs (11, 16) for providing the studded structure, are arranged grid-like on the surface of the film (4, 5, see Figs. 4a-4d). The examiner interprets the arrangement of spacers (16) shown in Figures 4a-4d as “grid-like” due to their perpendicular arrangement relative to one another around the walls of the housing. Therefore, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 9, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Figures 4a-4d of Pflueger further appear to show that at least one stud (11, 16) of the studded structure has a truncated cone-shaped form. Therefore, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Pflueger further discloses that the metal of the film (4, 5) is aluminum or stainless steel ([0016]). Therefore, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Pflueger further discloses that the studded structure with the plurality of studs (11, 16) is embossed ([0034]). The examiner interprets “embossing” to meet the limitation of stamping, as to emboss means to mold or stamp a material such that a relief is created. Therefore, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Pflueger further discloses that the at least one housing part (21, 22) includes a first housing part (21) and a second housing part (22), each with a half-shell shape and an opening ([0047]; Figs. 1, 2). Since the first housing part (21) and second housing part (22) have similar shapes, as shown in Figures 1 and 2, either housing part could be interpreted to meet the limitation of a housing pot or housing lid. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the first housing part (21) to be structured as a housing pot comprising a housing opening and the second housing part (22) to be structured as a housing lid that closes the housing opening of the housing pot (as shown in Fig. 2). Therefore, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Pflueger further discloses that a material of the at least one housing part includes a plastic or a metal (metal, preferably stainless steel, aluminum, or copper [0016]). Therefore, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Pflueger et al. discloses a battery arrangement, comprising: a battery housing (1), the battery housing including: at least one housing part (21, 22) surrounding a housing interior (receiving space 3, [0045-0046]), a film (inner wall element 4 and outer wall element 5, [0049]) composed of a metal ([0016, 0048]) arranged, at least in portions on an outside of the at least one housing part (21, 22) facing away from the housing interior (3, see Figs. 1, 2, 4a), wherein the film has an encircling edge (outer wall element 5) and a surface disposed within the encircling edge (inner wall element 4) that faces the at least one housing part (21, 22), the film including a studded structure provided that includes a plurality of studs (spacer elements 11, 16) arranged spaced apart from one another and projecting from the surface of the film (4, 5), wherein the plurality of studs (11, 16) support themselves on the outside of the at least one housing part (21, 22, [0032-0034, 0038]; Figs. 4a-4d), and at least one battery cell module (2, [0041]) arranged in the housing interior (3) of the battery housing (1, [0045-0047, 0057]). Therefore, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claim 18, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. Pflueger further discloses that the plurality of studs (11, 16) are arranged in a grid-like pattern on the surface of the film, and wherein the plurality of studs are distributed on the surface in a length direction and a width direction of the film (4, 5, see Figs. 1, 4a-4d). The examiner interprets the arrangement of spacers (16) shown in Figures 4a-4d as “grid-like” due to their perpendicular arrangement (thus distributed in both a length direction and a width direction) relative to one another around the walls of the housing. Therefore, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 18.
Regarding claim 21, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Pflueger further discloses that the plurality of studs (11, 16) are distributed on the surface in a length direction and a width direction of the film (4, 5) in a perpendicular arrangement relative to one another (see Figs. 1, 4a-4d). Therefore, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 21.
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 6-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pflueger et al. (DE 102018217083 A1, paragraphs cited from the provided English translation).
Regarding claim 6, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Pflueger does not disclose the height of the studs (spacers 11, 16). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the plurality of studs to each have a stud height measured perpendicularly to the surface of the film, that amounts to between 2560 µm and 2680 µm. The Courts have held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, modified Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Pflueger does not disclose a film height between 1.5 mm and 5.3 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for a total film height measured perpendicularly to the surface of the film to amount to between 1.5 mm and 5.3 mm. The Courts have held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, modified Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, modified Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. Pflueger does not disclose a ratio of stud height to stud spacing. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for a ratio of the stud height to a stud spacing of two adjacent studs amounts to between 0.15 and 0.25. The Courts have held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, modified Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. Pflueger does not disclose the height of the studs (spacers 11, 16). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the plurality of studs to each have a stud height, measured perpendicularly to the surface of the film, that amounts to between 1020 µm and 1150 µm. The Courts have held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, modified Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 19.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pflueger et al. (DE 102018217083 A1, paragraphs cited from the provided English translation) in view of Dupper (DE 102019207464 A1, published 26 Nov 2020, paragraphs cited from the provided English translation).
Regarding claim 15, Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. Pflueger further discloses that the film (4, 5) is connected to the at least one housing part (21, 22) via the plurality of studs (11, 16) such that at least one intermediate space (insulation space 121, 122, [0065, 0077]; Figs. 4a-4d) is provided between the film (4, 5) and the at least one housing part (21, 22). Pflueger does not disclose that the film is a fire protection film.
Dupper discloses a housing with a fire protection layer (29) formed from an insulating layer, which is applied as a thin film ([0009, 0020]). Dupper further discloses that the fire protection layer (29) has a multi-layer structure that comprises a protective shield made of stainless steel ([0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the film taught by Dupper for the film of Pflueger, for the purpose of fire protection. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Therefore, modified Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, modified Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above. Pflueger further discloses that the at least one intermediate space (insulation space 121, 122) is at least partially filed with a thermal insulation (insulating material 150, [0077]). Therefore, modified Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, modified Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above. Pflueger further discloses that the thermal insulation (insulating material 150) includes a foam material or a fibre fleece material (aerogel foam, glass fibers, [0040, 0077]). Therefore, modified Pflueger et al. meets the limitations of claim 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The results cited on page 7, paragraph 3 of the Applicant's Remarks are not cited, and the rejection based on Pflueger, as modified above, meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Applicant further does not point out the specific deficiencies of Pflueger. While there may not be spacers or studs in the receiving space, this is not commensurate in scope with the claims, as there are no limitations directed to this feature. Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 ALEXANDRA J SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-3036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30a - 6p.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/A.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights