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 1-12 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Cassard et al. (US 2019/0356028 A1).
As to claim 1, Cassard et al. discloses an electric vehicle battery pack case (enclosure 5) comprising a case main body (bottom 7) and a cover assembled to the case main body (upper part 17) (figure 1),
wherein the case main body (7) comprises continuous fibers (long fibers) and discontinuous fibers (short fibers) [0057-59] (The fibers are also called reinforcement-[0057]).
As to claim 2, Cassard et al discloses a blend of continuous fibers and discontinuous fibers thus some of the discontinuous fibers are located on the outskirts of the case.
As to claim 12, Cassard et al. discloses the case further comprising a coupling part (37 mechanical member [0091]) formed on a side surface of the enclosure (5, figure 1).
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.
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassard et al. (US 2019/0356028 A1).
As to claim 6, Cassard et al. discloses a ratio of a content of the continuous fibers (long fibers) to a content of the discontinuous fibers (short fibers) in in a range of 1:1 to 1.5. (thus the short fiber range from 50-66.67%; Cassard et al. discloses the short fibers are at least 50% and the long fibers are less than 50%, thus overlapping the claimed range).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior
art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 7, Cassard et al. discloses the fibers/reinforcement can be selected from high modulus polypropylene [0099].
It would have would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the polypropylene because “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
As to claim 8, Cassard et al. discloses the fibers/reinforcement can be carbon, glass or natural (linen, hemp, bio-sourced) fibers [0099].
It would have would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the carbon, glass or natural (linen, hemp, bio-sourced) fibers because “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
As to claim 9, Cassard et al. discloses the battery pack case of claim 1. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987.) In this case, the limitation of “the electric vehicle battery pack case is UL94 V-O in evaluation according to the LLO4 vertical burning test (UL94 V TEST)” is how the case intended to be tested/employed.
As to claim 10, Cassard et al. disclose the vehicle battery pack case of claim 1. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987.) In this case, the limitation of “the electric vehicle battery pack case is extinguished within 2 minutes when exposed ta flame for 70 seconds according to GB/T 31467.3.” is how the case will be used and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassard et al. (US 2019/0356028 A1) in view of Ootsuki et al. (US 2021/0013460 A1).
As to claim 3, discloses the vehicle casing of claim 1 but does not disclose a flame retardant coating as instantly claimed.
Ootsuki et al. discloses a layer of fire resistant laminate around the battery cell. The fire resistant is used to reduce the force of fire by efficiently dispersing fire spouting out of a battery [0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include the fire resistant layer to the housing of Cassard because this would reduce the force of fire by efficiently dispersing fire spouting out of a battery.
As to claims 4 and 5, Modified Cassard discloses the battery and Ootsuki further discloses the layer is made of a fire-resistant resin composition and which comprises a resin and one fire resistant additive(flame retardant) (abstract). The flame retardant is an inorganic flame retardant of a thermally expandable layered inorganic matter (abstract) and the resin comprises polystyrene resin [0088]. Ootsuki further discloses the 2-1000 micrometers [0308].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior
art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Furthermore “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassard et al. (US 2019/0356028 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2013/0252059).
As to claim 11, Cassard et al disclose the fibers and resin as it taught above in claim 1, but does not disclose the weight of the continuous fibers to the resin as the claimed ratio of 50-60:40-50.
Choi et al. discloses a battery back and teaches including the continuous fiber in the fiber reinforced plastic composite improves the structural stiffness, collision characteristics and the dimensional stability of the case [0058]. Choi et al. further teaches the amount of the continuous fiber as 30-70 wt. percent [0106]. Choi et al. further teaches that when the weight of the long fiber is less than about 30 wt. %, desired mechanical characteristics may not be achieved, and when the weight of the long fiber is greater than about 70 wt. %, the flowability may be reduced during the molding, causing reduction of moldability and deterioration of the exterior quality.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time the application was effectively filed to include the continuous fibers in the amount of 30-70%, which overlaps the claimed range of 50-60% with respect to the resin because this has the desired mechanical characteristics and allows for flowability during the manufacturing process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA J LAIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-9808. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6pm.
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 at 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.
/Maria Laios/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727