DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-11 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the foam i material s a polyamide foam” is interpreted to be a typo for “the foam material is a polyamide foam”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmidt (US 2021/0170853 to Schmidt et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Schmidt teaches:
a battery pack frame (abstract) comprising a plurality of cross members, including “front” and “rear” cross members (Fig. 1) with a pair of side members 3 with vertical extensions 9 extending between the front cross member and the rear cross member (¶ 0058-0061)
each of the side cross member having a pair of side walls, a top wall, and a bottom wall defining a cavity into which a reinforcing insert 4 is disposed within the cavity which has a plurality of ridges and a plurality of valleys (Fig. 2, ¶ 0060-0064)
PNG
media_image1.png
952
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Schmidt teaches:
what can be described as a honeycomb profile (Fig. 2)
Claims 1, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greber (US 2022/0013841 to Greber et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Greber teaches:
a battery pack frame comprising front, rear, and a pair of side cross members, the side cross member including a pair of sidewalls, a top wall and a bottom wall to define a cavity (Fig. 2, abstract)
a reinforcing insert 95 disposed within the cavity having a plurality of ridges and a plurality of valleys (Fig. 5, ¶ 0146)
PNG
media_image2.png
876
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Greber teaches:
a foam material 41 disposed above or below the insert (Fig. 5, ¶ 0081)
Regarding Claim 6, Greber teaches:
polyurethane foam of 0.07-0.13 g/cm3 (¶0081-0082), including an explicit embodiment of 100 g/L (¶ 0144)
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 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.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 2021/0170853 to Schmidt et al.).
Regarding Claims 3 and 5, Schmidt does not clearly teach:
a “triangular-wave” or “semi-circular” profile
Schmidt teaches “wavy or meandering cross-sectional shapes” (¶ 0066). Both semi-circular and triangular profiles were known corrugated patterns in the art. Where a prior art component has the same function as the instantly claimed component, motivation to alter the shape of the component to any other equally useful shape is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. In the instant case, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to alter the shape of the reinforcing insert to any other equally useful shape, such as the instantly claimed shape, as any shape would serve the same purpose, absent evidence of unexpected results.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 2021/0170853 to Schmidt et al.) in view of Hu (CN 1037306116 to Hu et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) and/or Nishimura (US 2015/0357606 to Nishimura et al.)
Regarding Claim 2, Schmidt does not teach:
a foam material disposed above or below the insert
Hu, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a side all of a battery housing with a wavy, corrugated, reinforcing inner portion 123, teaches providing a filler in the corrugated spacing for improving fire resistance and shock resistance (Fig. 5, p. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
334
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Similarly, Nishimura, also from the same field of invention, teaches providing a foam reinforcing filling in the side wall of a battery housing (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
660
434
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a foam filling material in the side walls of Schmidt with the motivation to improve shock resistance and the like, as suggested by Hu and Nishimura.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 2021/0170853 to Schmidt et al.) in view of Hu (CN 1037306116 to Hu et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) and/or Nishimura (US 2015/0357606 to Nishimura et al.) in further view of Roozemond (US 2022/0073728 to Roozemond et al.).
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Schmidt does not explicitly teach:
polyurethane or polyamide foam having a density of 0.1-0.7, or 0.29-.035 g/cm3
Roozemond, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a foam filler, teaches a polymer foam that can comprise polyurethane or polyamide (¶ 0046) at densities of 0.05-0.70, or, more specifically, 0.07-0.30 g/cm3 (¶ 0084). Given that Hu and Nishimura teach generic foams as filler that are suited for energy absorption, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to select conventional space-filling foams known in the art, such as those disclosed in Roozemond. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). The terms “polyamide foam” and “polyurethane foam” are interpreted broadly to include polymer foams that contain amide and urethane monomers, absent a more particular definition.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 2021/0170853 to Schmidt et al.) in view of Hu (CN 1037306116 to Hu et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) and/or Nishimura (US 2015/0357606 to Nishimura et al.) in further view of Kalinin (RU 2280132 to Kalinin, the Office cites to provided machine English translation).
Regarding Claim 8, Schmidt does not explicitly teach:
a first, second, and third foam material
Kalinin, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a foam panel, teaches providing three or more layers of different or alternating foams with different properties, to achieve a mixed property across the foam panel, including foamed polyurethane and ceramic wools, or foams (p. 1, Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
990
294
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide three or more layers of different foams in the side wall of Schmidt, with the motivation to tune the fireproofing, insulation, and shock absorbing properties of the filler material, rendered obvious by Hu and Nishimura.
Regarding Claim 9, Schmidt teaches:
upper and lower parts of the reinforcing inserts
It was, moreover, conventional in the art to provide multi-piece corrugated inserts. See e.g. DE 102016013633 (Figs. 2 and 3). Insofar as Schmidt does not explicitly teach separate inserts, it would have been obvious nonetheless to provide a multipiece corrugated inserted comprising upper and lower parts, since that was conventionally known in the art. Making separable what had previously been non-portable or unmovable has been found to be obvious. See In re Lindberg, 194 F. 2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952); In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961); and MPEP § 2144.02 V, A [R-5]. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach or render obvious the claimed first, second, and third foam materials disposed in the claimed positions with respect to the insert(s). Nor does the prior art of record appear to render such a combination obvious.
Additional prior art that may be relevant to the claims but does not render claims 10 and 11 obvious includes:
US 2012/0103714
US 2022/0320659
US Patent No. 7,264,147
US Patent No. 11,688,909
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights